[QUOTE] In a worldwide survey of 50 populations, a team of geneticists has identified many fingerprints of natural selection in the human genome. These are sites on the genome where specific sequences of DNA show signs of having become more common in the population, presumably because they helped their owners adapt to new climates, diseases or other factors. The genetic regions where natural selection has acted turn out to differ in various populations, doubtless because each has been molded by different local forces on each continent.
This chart shows the sites along the genome (listed at the left) at which natural selection has occurred in the genome of eight regional groups (shown at top). These are 1) Biaka pygmies, 2) Bantu-speaking Africans, 3) Western Europeans, 4) Middle Easterners, 5) South Asians (people of Pakistan and India), 6) East Asians, 7) Oceanians and 8) Native Americans. The colored bars show the degree of selection at each site, with yellow denoting a signal of clear but moderate statistical significance and red denoting high statistical significance.
The three West Eurasian groups show very similar patterns of selection, which probably occurred before they separated into three geographically distinct populations but after their ancestors split from those of East Asians.
Because the human genome is still so little understood, in most cases the genes at the sites of selection (shown along the right) are of unknown function. One exception is that of genes affecting skin color that have been under strong selective pressure in non-African populations. These include the gene SLC24A5 (shown in red, at center of chart), one version of which has been favored in European, Middle Eastern and South Asian populations. SLC24A5 is not under selection in East Asians, who presumably acquired their pale skin through a different set of genes, an example of what is known as convergent evolution.
Another set of genes found to be under selection in non-African populations are three NRG or neuregulin genes (the third, NRG3, is shown in red) and a receptor gene they all interact with (ERBB4, also in red). The NRG genes make signaling proteins that are active in the developing embryo in shaping tissues like the brain, heart and breast. A variant of NRG1 has been implicated in schizophrenia. The researchers do not know which of the several roles of the neuregulin genes has caused it to come under selection.
The principal human races presumably emerged as the populations of each continent responded to different evolutionary pressures. "Our work supports the notion that regional populations have adapted in a variety of ways, some shared, some not, to the selective pressures they encountered as they dispersed from the ancestral African homeland some 80,000 years ago," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago.
The authors of the new study are Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues Joseph Pickrell and Graham Coop. It was published online last month in Genome Research. It is the first to look for signals of selection in DNA samples gathered by the Human Genome Diversity Project.
posted
Studies like this are dangerous. They not only show that race differences (color/pigmentation) exist. Information like this could be used in the future to make genocide against people one group may not like possible.
Just imagine if the NAZIs or racist had this information years ago. They could have used this information to make perfect genocide or segregation of races.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Natural selection, genetic drift and environmental adaptation are not RACE Clyde. Nowhere does this chart show what you are claiming.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pritchard is one of those that holds to the old race categories. Right off the bat one can see his categories are suspect- including the so- called 'Middle Eastern" category. And notice how one of the reputedly major groups is "Bantu" speakers. Very convenient. How come he doesnt use speakers of Afroasiatic? We know why. Because then they can't airbrush Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalians, Nubians etc out of Africa into their so - called "Middle Eastern" category.
Furthermore some of Pritichar's other "race" work uses huge categories, such as Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas. With such massive groupsyou can make just about any "race" you want to. But curiously, the line is drawn much more narrowly when it comes to Africa. There, only certain "true" sub-Saharan groups are lumped together. Subsaharan sounds neutral but too often certain groups geographically sub-saharan somehow "disappear" into other categories.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
zarahan wrote: ---------------------------- Pritchard is one of those that holds to the old race categories. Right off the bat one can see his categories are suspect- including the so- called 'Middle Eastern" category. And notice how one of the reputedly major groups is "Bantu" speakers. Very convenient. ----------------------------
I wonder what excuse the faux geneticist rasol will make for this.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Natural selection, genetic drift and environmental adaptation are not RACE Clyde. Nowhere does this chart show what you are claiming.
New York Times Article
quote:
Because the human genome is still so little understood, in most cases the genes at the sites of selection (shown along the right) are of unknown function. One exception is that of genes affecting skin color that have been under strong selective pressure in non-African populations. These include the gene SLC24A5 (shown in red, at center of chart), one version of which has been favored in European, Middle Eastern and South Asian populations. SLC24A5 is not under selection in East Asians, who presumably acquired their pale skin through a different set of genes, an example of what is known as convergent evolution.
Clearly this article is talking about race as noted by the discussion above about skin color.
Also, how did you fail to see this quote:
quote:
The principal human races presumably emerged as the populations of each continent responded to different evolutionary pressures. "Our work supports the notion that regional populations have adapted in a variety of ways, some shared, some not, to the selective pressures they encountered as they dispersed from the ancestral African homeland some 80,000 years ago," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago.
posted
^ Clyde, this is not the first time we are having this kind of debate. Just to inform the new members, and I dare you that you'd even consider this topic to publish an article. I know you are having this debate to test the water.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there are variations within the human race,but there aren't "races" but phenotype variation.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It must be frustrating to the "no race" Negros, always seeking integration as ultimate goal, that a contemporary liberal media outlet still engages in "race talk".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Obviously not as frustrating as the racialist imbeciles such as yourself who claim that those who acknowledge the FACT of the non-existence of biological race to somehow be involved in a ridiculous agenda of "integration".
Speaking of which how is white Euro-turd like yourself still handling the fact that 'integration' was done a long time ago as proof of black ancestry among Euros like yourself?? Posts: 26283 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please Mary, give up the act already. We all know, from your racist dismissal of Prof. James and your peculiar Hegelian logic, that you are merely projecting your closet bigotry.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: It must be frustrating to the "no race" Negros, always seeking integration as ultimate goal, that a contemporary liberal media outlet still engages in "race talk".
This is rhetoric.. Can you answer my question since you're so quick to pounce.
What is a "race" and how does this study speak to that concept??..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Pritchard is one of those that holds to the old race categories. Right off the bat one can see his categories are suspect- including the so- called 'Middle Eastern" category. And notice how one of the reputedly major groups is "Bantu" speakers. Very convenient. How come he doesnt use speakers of Afroasiatic? We know why. Because then they can't airbrush Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalians, Nubians etc out of Africa into their so - called "Middle Eastern" category.
Furthermore some of Pritichar's other "race" work uses huge categories, such as Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas. With such massive groupsyou can make just about any "race" you want to. But curiously, the line is drawn much more narrowly when it comes to Africa. There, only certain "true" sub-Saharan groups are lumped together. Subsaharan sounds neutral but too often certain groups geographically sub-saharan somehow "disappear" into other categories.
Zarahan, you are correct. Unfortunately people like Cylde and Assopen are too stupid to realize that genetic studies or the whole field of genetics is NOT the issue but how some people interpret these genetic studies! It's a well known fact that no matter how valid a science certain individuals will still carry their biases even in the form of racial baggage along into that science. In the yesteryears it was physical anthropology in the form of crania where people tried to turn certain African skulls not only in North African but even Sub-Sahara into 'caucasoid'. Today there people who try to do the same thing only using genetic haplotypes. Those who are well versed in the field like Rasol or those well versed in logical and scientific thinking in general like you and myself can't be fooled it's just ignorant ones (whom I mentioned earlier) that can be fooled.
Posts: 26283 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: It must be frustrating to the "no race" Negros, always seeking integration as ultimate goal, that a contemporary liberal media outlet still engages in "race talk".
This is rhetoric.. Can you answer my question since you're so quick to pounce.
What is a "race" and how does this study speak to that concept??..
You're so predictable Captain America. lol
And are you asking for my definition of the term or the definition by your white liberal allies?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Oh please Mary, give up the act already. We all know, from your racist dismissal of Prof. James and your peculiar Hegelian logic, that you are merely projecting your closet bigotry.
Please stop referring to me as 'Mary' or any other fantasized alter-ego. And of course I'm not racist, but you still continue to project your guilt and racism on to me. As for the Hegel thread you linked to, I made myself clear and even Explorer finally understood. I never expected YOU to understand.
By the way, if I'm so racist, why don't I have a problem with accepting YOUR mixedpart-African European heritage?? Posts: 26283 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
And are you asking for my definition of the term or the definition by your white liberal allies?
I'm clearly asking you since you're the one responding. All that I hear are crickets though.. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Pritchard is one of those that holds to the old race categories. Right off the bat one can see his categories are suspect- including the so- called 'Middle Eastern" category. And notice how one of the reputedly major groups is "Bantu" speakers. Very convenient. How come he doesnt use speakers of Afroasiatic? We know why. Because then they can't airbrush Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalians, Nubians etc out of Africa into their so - called "Middle Eastern" category.
Furthermore some of Pritichar's other "race" work uses huge categories, such as Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas. With such massive groupsyou can make just about any "race" you want to. But curiously, the line is drawn much more narrowly when it comes to Africa. There, only certain "true" sub-Saharan groups are lumped together. Subsaharan sounds neutral but too often certain groups geographically sub-saharan somehow "disappear" into other categories.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
And are you asking for my definition of the term or the definition by your white liberal allies?
I'm clearly asking you since you're the one responding. All that I hear are crickets though..
Calm down Captain America I just wanted clarity as before, in your fit of rage, you scream at your liberal friends and said they didn't define the term, now it seems you're asking me for my defintion of the term.
My defintion of "race" is social not biological. Hence AE were black, not white or white Arab like some present inhabitants today.
quote: As for the Hegel thread you linked to, I made myself clear and even Explorer finally understood. I never expected YOU to understand.
Of course I fully understand your racist slips Mary. He might have interpreted your closet bigotry as your inability to express yourself:
"you and I both know, the issue is not my understanding of what you initially posted, but rather, that you didn't clarify what you posted, and what you did post later, is or was not the same as the initial post."
But I know you Mary, I know you all too well.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the graph printed by Clyde? Do you agree with the categories the author of the study say humans are divided into?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when did Yoruba, San, and Mandenka become Bantu?
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: alTakruri wrote: ------------------------- -------------------------
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the graph printed by Clyde? Do you agree with the categories the author of the study say humans are divided into?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do Biaka Pygmy and Bantu (ethnies) figure against Europe, Mideast, S.Asia, E.Asia, Oceania, and America (geographies)?
Why didn't Pickrell chose an ethny from each of the geographies?
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: alTakruri wrote: ------------------------- -------------------------
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the graph printed by Clyde? Do you agree with the categories the author of the study say humans are divided into?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I added itlaics, bolding, listing, and underscoring for bias emphasis
quote:
... the HGDP data consist of 657,143 SNPs typed on 938 individuals in 53 populations.
For some analyses, each population was treated individually, but for others we found it more powerful to group populations together and increase sample sizes. For these latter analyses, we divided the individuals into eight groups, most of which represent broad geographic regions:
These groups were chosen to provide reasonably homogenous sets of populations for analysis, as judged by clustering at randomly chosen loci (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Li et al. 2008).
posted
Pickrell's Bantu geographies are SeneGambia (Mandenka) Bight of Benin (Yoruba) East Central Africa (Bantu Kenya) Southern Africa (Bantu South Africa)
The geographies are my assumption from Pickrell's maps. The parenthesis ethnies are Pickrell's own. Other than that I can find no statistics as to the origin or number in the report or supplement.
posted
In the subjective world of race white Arabs and some North Africans are seen as usefully "white":
"When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead. In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish. The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian."
Paris liberation made 'whites only' BBC NewsPosts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pickrell's Mideast spreads from central Algeria to either Syria (or way off Pakistan), but the Mozabites are Africans! God only knows from where his Beduin hail.
Maybe his Mideast ends with the Palestinians and Druze. If so then Pakistan is part of his S.Asia along with Balochi and others like Sindhi, Pathani, etc. But Makrani is smack in the midst of what I take to be his S.Asia. But they were Bantu, no?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever peer review provides, it's no proof of accuracy or absence of bias -- only what the peers feel is ok by their standards or point of view (and that mean nothing when it comes to history, culture, geography, etc., in these genetic reports).
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Right off the bat one can see his categories are suspect- including the so- called 'Middle Eastern" category. And notice how one of the reputedly major groups is "Bantu" speakers. Very convenient.
Very stupid.
The Middle East has had alot of recent and ancient gene flow from various already genetically differentiated source populations. Bantu speakers are only a sub-set of Niger-Congo speakers. Whatever variation they have other Niger-Congo speakers should have it.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you say is exactly Pickrell's thinking and why he lumps geographically dispersed Africans as Bantu even when they don't speak the language or when speaking the language are vastly separated from each other by lakes mountains and desert and have differing historical migrations or acculturation.
I don't agree because language has no impact on genetic selection. Certainly there are variations not shared between southern Africa, the Swahili coast, the Bight of Benin, and SeneGambia.
His other major groups, except pehaps the Mideast, are all defined by geography. So should his Bantu (Mandenka and Yoruba are not Bantu by any stretch.
quote:Originally posted by Freehand:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Right off the bat one can see his categories are suspect- including the so- called 'Middle Eastern" category. And notice how one of the reputedly major groups is "Bantu" speakers. Very convenient.
Very stupid.
The Middle East has had alot of recent and ancient gene flow from various already genetically differentiated source populations. Bantu speakers are only a sub-set of Niger-Congo speakers. Whatever variation they have other Niger-Congo speakers should have it.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Studies like this are dangerous. They not only show that race differences (color/pigmentation) exist. Information like this could be used in the future to make genocide against people one group may not like possible.
Just imagine if the NAZIs or racist had this information years ago. They could have used this information to make perfect genocide or segregation of races.
.
Clyde, I see that you are still hung up on proving that race exists. When anthropologists and geneticists maintain that there are no biological races they are referring to a specific definition.
Look at Keita's stance on race for instance. Can you show me what specifically in this article the article you posted refutes?
posted
What scientists see as "races" are just phenotypical variations" in humans, that is why the relation of "races"
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As i said in the other thread, I don't understand why Native Americans are so easily differentiated from East Asians given that Native Americans arrived in the America's relatively recently. Yes, it is more accurate to mention that the ancestors of Amerindians were technically Central Asians, not East Asian, but I believe that the two groups would at least show more similarities to eachother than that graph would lead one to believe.
If that is the case when it comes to Amerindians versus East Asians, than many more population groups could have been used to show clusters. It would especially be the case within Africa, and there should definitely be more than 2 groups.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We must come to terms with the fact that while it's true that in this instance the NY Times writer says
quote: The principal human races presumably emerged as the populations of each continent responded to different evolutionary pressures.
the science community allows their work to be interpreted as promoting the biological existance of more than one human race equating to geographic populations formed by positive selection as the processor of race.
Somebody's being played in a tongue in cheek race game.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What you say is exactly Pickrell's thinking and why he lumps geographically dispersed Africans as Bantu even when they don't speak the language or when speaking the language are vastly separated from each other by lakes mountains and desert and have differing historical migrations or acculturation.
I don't agree because language has no impact on genetic selection. Certainly there are variations not shared between southern Africa, the Swahili coast, the Bight of Benin, and SeneGambia.
His other major groups, except pehaps the Mideast, are all defined by geography. So should his Bantu (Mandenka and Yoruba are not Bantu by any stretch.
I definitely agree, particularly with the second bolded part; if they are going to split non Africans into geographically defined groups, defining all those peoples as a single race named after a group of people who at origin are a subset of West African genetic diversity or a merger of such with in-loco inhabitants who are not likely all the same themselves.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic