Human Genetic Variation not Ethnically related

[Eos of the Eons]

Lancet Paper of the Year Award 2003
Noah A Rosenberg and colleagues' article Genetic structure
of human populations, published in Science on Dec 20, 2002.

The general biological lesson is that
the overwhelming source of human genetic variation is
between individuals and not between ethnic groups. In the
paper this becomes even clearer by the finding
that there are no absolute genetic differences between
ethnic groups:

There was a debate on this a few months ago, rather drawn out too...am looking for electronic link.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n5/024787/brief/024787.abstract.html

In the absence of evidence for genetic differences between populations, some researchers had begun to argue that simply asking patients their ethnic or geographic origin is not enough to determine their likely genetic background and that testing is required instead2.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/021216/021216-13.html#b1

 

[Yahweh]

Human Genetic Variation not Ethnically related

Some groups have tried to maintain that Race and Ethinic diversity was influenced by genetic speciation (i.e blacks were not homo sapiens, instead something like homo sapiens-negrolius). Of course, groups like that are extremists who try to justify prejudices with intellectually dishonesty...

Today, we know Ethnicity is influenced by geography. All ethinic groups and cultures (from 4'0 tall pygmies to 7'2 basketball players) are essentially genetically identical.

 

[Bjorn]

Some groups have tried to maintain that Race and Ethinic diversity was influenced by genetic speciation (i.e blacks were not homo sapiens, instead something like homo sapiens-negrolius). Of course, groups like that are extremists who try to justify prejudices with intellectually dishonesty...

Today, we know Ethnicity is influenced by geography. All ethinic groups and cultures (from 4'0 tall pygmies to 7'2 basketball players) are essentially genetically identical.

What is determining how tall pygmies grow?

If it is the genes, then obviously their genes must be different from the masai's genes.

I could ask the same when it comes to skin color.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Bjorn

What is determining how tall pygmies grow?

If it is the genes, then obviously their genes must be different from the masai's genes.

I could ask the same when it comes to skin color

You could.

The point is that, historically, asking about the source of differences in traits such as height has been considered relatively unimportant compared to differences in skin color. In terms of explanitory power, using skin color alone to estimate the genetic distance between a pigmy and (say) a Masai would be nearly as weak a method as using paint color to classify automotobile designs.

 

[Bjorn]

You could.

The point is that, historically, asking about the source of differences in traits such as height has been considered relatively unimportant compared to differences in skin color. In terms of explanitory power, using skin color alone to estimate the genetic distance between a pigmy and (say) a Masai would be nearly as weak a method as using paint color to classify automotobile designs.

Well, if you want to explain the difference in skin color between a Chinese and a Norwegian, I would say a very good explanation would be genetical differences, just as paint color is a good classification tool if one wants to differentiate cars by color.

It is an oversimplification to say that 'All ethnic groups and cultures (from 4'0 tall pygmies to 7'2 basketball players) are essentially genetically identical.'.

They are not genetically identical - and even if 99% of the genes were the same, the remaining ones result in recognizable differences.

Isn't the important thing to remember that the genes that make us look different are not necessarly placing us anywhere on a ranking list?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Bjorn

paint color is a good classification tool if one wants to differentiate cars by color.

Hard to argue with that.

It is an oversimplification to say that 'All ethnic groups and cultures (from 4'0 tall pygmies to 7'2 basketball players) are essentially genetically identical.

Saying that it is an oversimplification may be an oversimplification.

There is far less diversity in the human gene pool than might be expected for such a widespread species. There are small groups of chimpanzees within which there is more variation than in the entire human population. The explanation for this is that the human population passed through a bottleneck around 74k years ago (one explanation for the explanation -- that this was the result of a 'volcanic winter' -- fails to explain why this bottleneck is not seen among more non-human species. Maybe it was a flu pandemic).

Isn't the important thing to remember that the genes that make us look different are not necessarly placing us anywhere on a ranking list?

I'm afraid people are going to continue to rank each other on that sort of basis no matter what. There may even be some biological reasons why there is such a strong tendancy to do so (i.e., 'kin selection' -- that one is likely to be most related to those with the closest physical resemblance was a much more reasonable assumption when most humans lived their entire lives in the same local vicinity.)

I think the important thing to remember is that not all genetic differences make us look different, and that some of the invisible differences may be arguably more significant than the visible ones.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I agree, but the assessment that genetic variations between individuals ( even of the same racial background) is demonstrable larger then the obvious stereotypical characteristics of differences between "racial " groups seems an attempt to carry PC as a sword that cuts out cancerous ideas that offend, not a statistaclly, or scientifically valid and provable idea.

Quote :"The general biological lesson is that the overwhelming source of human genetic variation is between individuals and not between ethnic groups. In the paper this becomes even clearer by the finding that there are no absolute genetic differences between ethnic groups:"
The operative word here being absolute. That suficently obscures the propensity for any general trend towards genetic divergence. The second ?question? I would pose as I know nothing about genetics, is that the properties of the markers they used for the study. I can demonstrate that through certain markers that a dachund a corgie ( sorry Queen mum ) and a wolf are all the same genetically and that the difference between the two corgies ( 1 recently deceased ) are greater then the assigned markers for "racial" demarcation.
The Phrase that there is no ( I omit the word absolute) difference defies logic and observation , that an aborigine and a New York Jewish person or a Norwegian viking stereotype or a typical Japaneese businessman hold no genetic difference is prima facia stupid. Americans of African descent have a propensity for genetic diseases that are not shared by thier European derivative brethren. That these differences are minor in the grand scheme of things is ...allowable, they all ( hopefully ) have two eyes, four limbs and a brain (?).

The exact number of genes in humans is in dispute. The latest figure thru new analysis seems to suggests that there are probably between 65,000 and 75,000 transcriptional units.The molecule of DNA in a single human chromosome ranges in size from 50 x 10^6 nucleotide pairs in the smallest chromosome (stretched full-length this molecule would extend 1.7 cm) up to 250 x 10^6nucleotide pairs in the largest (which would extend 8.5 cm).. The max number of genes mapped ( not the chromosomal DNA ) is at 90% in 2003. That's a 10% error rate at the start of analysis.Transpose ( no pun intended ) that to the DNA pairs and tell me how solid a model is represented by this paper.

IMHO This study represents nothing but a snapshot attempt to grasp the complexities of the Human organism at one point in time.. a signpost if you will, and not a declarative statement of any particular value.

Again A genitist would understand the markers chosen for this study better than I as to the efficasy of thier application to the summation.

edit to add scientific notation superscript that didn't copy.

 

[bug_girl]

This research is really not new news--it's been hinted at for a long time in earlier studies. these authors put the pieces together, and used some new tools.
it makes a lot of sense, too. Think about some of the major metabolic disorders. they tend to be regional (mediterranean, etc.) rather than racial. Certainly, they are more critical to the survival of the organism than skin color.
as visual animals, we just happen to focus on the visual differences, rather than the real, and more meaningful, internal differences at the cellular and enzymatic level.
the number of spots on a lady bug are trivial. the ability to digest certain plants--that's what's important, and what has a huge variability between populations and individuals.
My question would be, why are some of us reluctant to give up the old view of human "groups" in light of new evidence?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

the assessment that genetic variations between individuals (even of the same racial background) is demonstrable larger then the obvious stereotypical characteristics of differences between "racial " groups seems an attempt to carry PC as a sword that cuts out cancerous ideas that offend, not a statistaclly, or scientifically valid and provable idea.

Dismissing a scientific finding as a concession to 'political correctness' is something that may be tossed off as a casual insult, but I don't see it as casually insulting; I see it as devastatingly insulting. It is saying of someone not only that he has been scientifically dishonest by placing a political agenda above scientific truth, but intellectually impotent as well, by adopting as that agenda the most superficial form of liberalism. I haven't yet found any basis for considering Zhivotovsky, Rosenberg, and Feldman as suitable targets.

The Phrase that there is no (I omit the word absolute) difference defies logic and observation, that an aborigine and a New York Jewish person or a Norwegian viking stereotype or a typical Japaneese businessman hold no genetic difference is prima facia stupid.

I'd say it defies primitive logic and superficial observation. The average person walking down the street would never say that there was no absolute difference...the geneticist, however, would. Is the common man more knowledgable about genetics than the geneticist, or is there something more to it than what is prima facia evident?

As evidenced by your very choice of the 'businessman' distinction, your second example is loaded with cultural preconceptions. The dachsund/wolf comparison is likely to be cleaner in this regard. Selective breeding has produced various breeds of domestic dog from the wolf primarily by eliminating certain traits from reproductively isolated sub-populations. Not much of the difference between a dog and a wolf is a result of mutation, but of distribution of alleles; greater homozygosity. In other words, almost everything the dog has was already present in the wolf. Interbreeding wolves with any breed of domestic dog produces, in relatively few generations, animals virtually indistinguishable from the wild type.

The exact number of genes in humans is in dispute

Probably due to the fact that the term 'gene' is hopelessly ambiguous and tautological.

IMHO This study represents nothing but a snapshot attempt to grasp the complexities of the Human organism at one point in time..

Well, you might take a closer look there.

a signpost if you will, and not a declarative statement of any particular value.

I agree. The declarative statements seem to be being made by others, and the value of such statements is always subject to question.

 

[Bjorn]

I'd say it defies primitive logic and superficial observation. The average person walking down the street would never say that there was no absolute difference...the geneticist, however, would. Is the common man more knowledgable about genetics than the geneticist, or is there something more to it than what is prima facia evident?

Very short:

Are you saying that there are no genetical differences between an aborigine and a New York Jewish person or a Norwegian viking stereotype or a typical Japaneese businessman?

Would the geneticist say so?

Just to recall - I posted on this thread because of this statement:

All ethnic groups and cultures (from 4'0 tall pygmies to 7'2 basketball players) are essentially genetically identical.

... and my point is that they may well share a lot of genes, but some of those we do not share are obvious.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Bjorn

Are you saying that there are no genetical differences between an aborigine and a New York Jewish person or a Norwegian viking stereotype or a typical Japaneese businessman?

No. I'm saying that to begin the enumeration of those differences by dropping them into categories according to 'race' is not a particularly useful approach, since variations among individuals categorized as part of a single race may be more pronounced than the differences between one race and another. The standard applied in declaring any individual to be typically Japanese is essentially arbitrary.

Would the geneticist say so?

The genetic evidence itself says that we are all much more closely related than the casual eye (fine-tuned as it is to the subtlest nuance) would indicate.

Geneticists these days say things like:

"Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%."

and:

"If you selected any two humans on the planet, they would be identical for about 99.9% of their genomes."

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seems to me that we were not defining race based on how many traits the members have in common, but rather whether there are a few traits that almost all of the members share. It's not quantity, but consistency. So, does this consistency actually exist?

Case in point: Genzyme developed a drug to treat a disease that only affects Eskanazi Jews. They calculated their return on investment based on the percentage of Eskanazi Jews with the disease. Then, lo and behold, there turns up a large population of Japanese with the disease. And recently, a population of Pacific Islanders.

Whether the concept of race makes sense or not, it's going to become diluted with time. The days of populations keeping to themselves is over.

~~Paul

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Dynamic......................

Wow your response seems more like a moral lecture motivated by emotion rather then a counter-position supported by scientific evidence. The parts that address directly my thoughts are pedantic and judgmental.

The quote was :"SEEMS like an attempt at PC" preceded by the thrust that there are differences other then the stereotypical ( looks) characteristics. I did not dismiss the paper , which was outside the scope of my education and read as a sober, carefully constructed scientific paper. My feelings arise because ever since "The Bell Cure", the scientific community has sought actively to prove that "Race" is a nonsense phrase that means nothing. I disagree, I think there are genuine genetic differences between races, weather the Samoan propensity to gain huge amounts of weight from processed fats to the genes that express peculiar genetic repressions and propensities in the Icelandic population ( which has recently been rebutted).

That, however does not mean that one can use it as an exclusionary device or a reason to herald superiority. Which is a short cut to eugenics. It seems that this is what you see in my post, nothing could be farther from the truth. I gave short shrift to the "Bell Curve" altho it was a work that was just as carefully constructed as the paper we discuss it was published without peer review and has driven the genetic community to heights of damage control and preemptive editorial disallowance of studies deemed " unacceptable" ( anecdotal ). You mention cultural preconceptions. I said nothing about culture. I think You are a victim of your own prejustices , not I. If you do not understand the concept of genetic drift I humbly suggest you study it before making such pronouncements. A further quote "Probably due to the fact that the term 'gene' is hopelessly ambiguous and tautological. Really? Def :The fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. It is an agreed upon standard for geneticists much the same as light or photon is to a physicists. We may not be able to definitively quantify ( no pun ) what they are as of yet , but we understand the concept as it relates to the discipline. ( the term and it's derivatives appear at 30+ times ..I stopped counting at 30...in the article sited).

That begs the question, Are you a geneticists? Do you know the markers that the study used to demonstrate thier hypothesis? I am not and have stated such , if you are and can explain why the specific markers were chosen and what they represent , then You can enlighten me, if not your's is an opinion and nothing more.I know there is a debate as to the efficasy of the application of mDNA to define trends of local populations.

The thing that makes no sense to me is there are demonstrable differences between these groups greater then skin or eye color. The logic quoted makes no sense to me.

There are three genus species objects A,B and C. All are part of the superset ( Homo Sapiens ), A is part of a subset ( raceX ), B and C are also part of a different subset (raceY ) .. Thesis, the difference between B and C is greater the difference between A and B or A and C. I can torture math and make it work but this is a strait forward maxim based on the application of statistics or should I say misapplication. Quote :"Around 95% of all genetic variation exists within populations. Just 3 to 5% of variation occurs between different ones...". The information is statistically correct but the syntax leads to a different ( false ) view of the substance. Read carefully! Not “the genes vary by x%”, but “x% variation among the genes that vary!

Chimps and humans share %99 of the same DNA, that's a %1 difference, surely You must see a gulf between to two? The math stated in my post should indicate to You an enormous disconnect between our understanding of the H Genome and any attempt to be definitive at this juncture where an error rate of %1 would represent MILLIONS of DNA units...we have a %90 model at the moment.

This is just a classic case of the application of statistics to obscure an issue rather then to give it clarity. I.E. %87+ of all heroin users started with lesser drugs , mainly marijuana...or...~%4 of marijuana users graduate to heroin.

The result depends on which side of the editorial fence in re pot your on doesn't it? If you think that science is an immaculate, pristine arena of objective study, I got a bridge to sell you. All the sites I have visited to educate myself have the same quotes and tracts and cute picture of a little black boy and a little white girl in an idyllic setting....Who's trying to sell what to whom? Not I friend.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Till,

Haven't you noticed the different colors among even just "darker" skinned folks? I hear lighter africans whining that they are ostracized for having lighter skin than most of their kin.

Then there are tall Asians, and sumo wrestler Asians...they all occur naturally in their populations. Some Asians are born with western eyes. Some Asians I mistake for being American Indian.

Skin color and height are hardly a measure of 'differences' common in races. In any 'race' you will different skin colors and heights.

Now look at "caucasions". What is normal there? Short? Tall? Tan or albino? Curly or straight hair? So many differences. My children are all different. My first son has green-brown eyes and kind of average skin color compared to my other two kids, and he has straight dirty blonde hair. My second son has DARK (almost black) curly curly hair and blue eyes, and way darker skin. My daughter got my white white albinoish skin, blue eyes, straight hair that is almost red, but curly in the back only. My husband and I have green blue eyes.

What is normal?

We're all short in my opinion...but my family says my kids are average heights for their age groups. I'm short, and my husband says he's 5' 7", but I'd say he's closer to 5' 5" (don't tell him I said that!).


To find that people are genetically similar in geographic regions makes sense. Geography would affect survival more than outward appearances. There is more to our genes than our hair and skin colors, and heights. Those traits are minor compared to what is found in our genes.


When grouping humans by height, you'll get all kinds of humans in the short range.

When grouping humans by hair color, you'll get all kinds again.

When grouping humans by skin color, you'd be surprised what you find in the 'average' category.

Grouping humans by looks is silly.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Ahh Eos,

I thought I made it perfectly clear (in both posts) that the "differences" I was stating were not obvious traits but subtle and not gauged by the topical appearances. That is the purview of the Klan and the Nazis.

The paragraph that immeadeatly followed your quote was : " For everyday medical purposes, intrusive genetic tests probably won't be necessary argues Pritchard. "The correlation between self-reported ethnicity and genetic clustering is very strong," he says. "Doctors can ask what ethnicity you are and go with that," he says."

That means that when I go to my doctor and report symptoms of low energy and being tired the diagnostic pruning will not include sickle cell anemia as it would in that same symptomology in regards to an American of African decent.

There ARE differences between Peoples and the sexes , but anytime one seeks to observe or quantify the differences they ( Now ) come under attack as sexist or racist... That is not the goal of Science. That is not my goal . To ignore these questions because of the appearance of those attributes places us in the same constrictive equation that plagued Galileo... He was right, He was pardoned ...300 Yrs. later. Ignorance is not an option, no matter how good it makes you feel .

 

[Bjorn]

I'm just checking a little on genes in other animals and stumbled over this:

Dogs have 2.4 billion DNA letters, compared with our 2.9 billion, and 39 pairs of chromosomes to our 23. Different breeds are more than 99% identical.

I often describe dogs by their looks (usually the breed). We know we are talking about a dog, but there is more information in: It's a Great Dane. It's an Old English Sheepdog. Most people will now know how my dog looks. They don't know if he's clever, or if he's fast, or if he's big for his breed.

Describing my dog in such a way didn't take into consideration that dogs share 99% of the genes (those shared genes are just making it a dog, any dog). Nor is anyone thinking I'm discriminating other breeds just because I mentioned mine.

How is saying that a person is Asian or Caucasian different?

Heck, everybody knows my wife is Chinese and it will often be the first thing they mention about her. (By the way, I happen to have a lot of Chinese friends, and even if they don't all look the same, not one of them would pass for being anything else than Asian.)

So what's wrong with my wife being described as Chinese? Nothing. If you're looking for someone in a party and have him/her described as a little chubby with red hair and then you go find the chubby one with red hair, fine. Unless, of course, you find the description itself discriminating: He's the fat, ugly guy in the corner, or something like that.

When it comes to descriptions of how people look, not many genes beat those that make us look different.

Grouping humans by looks might be silly, I agree. Describing people by looks, on the other hand, is simply the best way of doing it.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Ahh Eos,

I thought I made it perfectly clear (in both posts) that the "differences" I was stating were not obvious traits but subtle and not gauged by the topical appearances. That is the purview of the Klan and the Nazis.

The paragraph that immeadeatly followed your quote was : " For everyday medical purposes, intrusive genetic tests probably won't be necessary argues Pritchard. "The correlation between self-reported ethnicity and genetic clustering is very strong," he says. "Doctors can ask what ethnicity you are and go with that," he says."

That means that when I go to my doctor and report symptoms of low energy and being tired the diagnostic pruning will not include sickle cell anemia as it would in that same symptomology in regards to an American of African decent.

There ARE differences between Peoples and the sexes , but anytime one seeks to observe or quantify the differences they ( Now ) come under attack as sexist or racist... That is not the goal of Science. That is not my goal . To ignore these questions because of the appearance of those attributes places us in the same constrictive equation that plagued Galileo... He was right, He was pardoned ...300 Yrs. later. Ignorance is not an option, no matter how good it makes you feel .

The article I read had doctors finding that they can't say

the diagnostic pruning will not include sickle cell anemia as it would in that same symptomology in regards to an American of African decent.

because there were no such distinctions.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Uhh I used Your link... Journal Nature http://www.nature.com/nsu/021216/021216-13.html
as for the second remark I do not understand it.

There is also this from the same article........:"Like previous analyses, Rosenberg's team identified big differences between very isolated populations such as pygmy tribes in Africa. They also highlighted new ones: the Kalash people of northern Pakistan, previously thought to be of East Asian origin, are genetically more similar to those from Europe or the Middle East, they found."

I question weather You selectivly edited your quotes as to give an appearence of truth to a personal beliefe rather than a quasi neutral scientific inquirey. If this was not Your intent I appoligise.

Edit SP

 

[Eos of the Eons]

This is what I got from the article you linked in that last post

It reveals that humans fall into six broad genetic groups, corresponding to people living in Eurasia, the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Oceania.

It doesn't mention races, it mentions geography. It separates Eurasia and East Asia. It separates the Americas and Saharan Africa.

I take this to mean Americas include all in Americans from Caucasians to American Indians to African Americans.

the Kalash people of northern Pakistan, previously thought to be of East Asian origin, are genetically more similar to those from Europe or the Middle East, they found.

I take this to mean that the Kalash LOOK more like east asians, but aren't genetically so.

researchers had begun to argue that simply asking patients their ethnic or geographic origin is not enough to determine their likely genetic background and that testing is required instead2.

 

[Bjorn]

the diagnostic pruning will not include sickle cell anemia as it would in that same symptomology in regards to an American of African decent.

Eos

because there were no such distinctions.

I'm not sure what you mean - but I hope you don't mean sickle cell anemia is spread just as much in other ethnic groups as in african americans?