tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post633564962734121008..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: X-chromosome variation in global populationsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69170329364114471752010-03-01T12:50:37.841+02:002010-03-01T12:50:37.841+02:00Why are the Amerindians so different from everybod...<i>Why are the Amerindians so different from everybody else on this measure?</i><br /><br />genetic drifts/bottlenecks/founder effects + relatively long-term isolation from the rest of the worldOnur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19938753631368135792010-03-01T12:48:31.671+02:002010-03-01T12:48:31.671+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36755863992513973622010-03-01T12:45:56.791+02:002010-03-01T12:45:56.791+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8914382102946788042010-03-01T02:19:50.570+02:002010-03-01T02:19:50.570+02:00Why are the Amerindians so different from everybod...Why are the Amerindians so different from everybody else on this measure? I thought they only crossed from Siberia 15,000 years ago. Thats no time at all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05475298239568249939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61031354776045103402010-02-21T03:27:52.431+02:002010-02-21T03:27:52.431+02:00"Considering any species as one single popula..."Considering any species as one single population we see that genes are emerging and becoming extinct all the time. So the genes needn't all arise at the one time. Each individual gene has its own history, as Karafet suggested as much as ten years ago."<br /><br />Thanks Terry. I had a little time to think more about the idea you are illustrating here. "Genes are emerging and becoming extinct" all the time. <br /><br />This morning, I came across an interesting article, to this affect, regarding diet and cultural evolution:<br /><br />http://www.americanscientist.org/<br />issues/feature/2010/2/<br />gene-culture-coevolution-and-human-diet<br /><br />Thanks again for your thoughts.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49282528114241753472010-02-13T00:58:44.096+02:002010-02-13T00:58:44.096+02:00"It is not a terribly homogeneous category bu..."It is not a terribly homogeneous category but more like the 'standard' morphotype of that West Eurasian population, which has certain homogeneity, nothing else". <br /><br />'West Eurasian' sounds like a better term than 'Caucasoid' then. Except many people now living in Western Eurasia have recent ancestors from outside that region. 'Indigenous West Eurasian', perhaps? <br /><br />"i am quite convinced such kind of information will allways be subject to great bias by the original researchers". <br /><br />Everyone brings their own prejudices and preconceptions to how they view the world. Those are largely a product of our upbringing. It's impossible to escape them, but they can alter with time as evidence accumulates.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18863491687986649662010-02-12T19:57:58.146+02:002010-02-12T19:57:58.146+02:00Maju:
"Marnie: the term "Caucasian"...Maju:<br /><br />"Marnie: the term "Caucasian" as used in USA "racial categories" does not just lack of any anthropometrical precise meaning (excludes South Asians arbitrarily) but it's also a term that lacks cultural universality: it's nothing but parochial slang."<br /><br />Well, you might be interested to know that I never answer the racial questions on various forms that are put in front of me. Actually, my only choice is usually to check the "white" box or opt out of the questions. <br /><br />Maybe it is just my scientist/engineering self, but there is something defacing about the word "white."<br /><br />With regard to racial categorization, at least here in California, all people of dominant European and Middle Eastern decent are lumped into the category "white." Caucasian is not used on forms. <br /><br />"The term "Caucasoid" is at least better defined and has some pretense of scientific precision. I'm not much in favor of using racial categories but in anthropology sometimes becomes too convenient to avoid their use. But, if we're going to use them, let at least be precise."<br /><br />To be honest, I am not clear on the difference between Caucasian and Caucasoid. I think people are somewhat aware that Caucasian is implied to mean "looking like" someone from the Caucasus. For the most part, I believe it stems from a linguistic categorization which is now somewhat outdated. It was thought that most Indo-European languages originated in the Caucasus.<br /><br />Genetics has clearly surpassed linguistics, in terms of its ability to group peoples. Unfortunately, neither society or bureaucracy has caught up. The geneticists also seem not entirely sure.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54519310722246643362010-02-12T14:44:44.960+02:002010-02-12T14:44:44.960+02:00i like the research for the coclusion drawn in the...i like the research for the coclusion drawn in the article. (that 'race is both subjective when applied to looks, and empiric when comparing different alleles) yet i have a huge problem with the prevalence of dna research and their ilk, that is so specific and specialist i can't check any of it. personally i am quite convinced such kind of information will allways be subject to great bias by the original researchers. i know this might be offtopic. but it is the one thing that keeps me bussy around the whole concepts of genome sequencing. perhaps the point is mostly moot in the context of archeology, however it has strong reverberations in social science, most pronouncedly in forensics. as such i think it is important to bring it under your attention. for example except the uncommon and great ease of planting false evidence, for the interpretation of any such evidence we don't have a comparison outside asking the next everso familiar institute that is part of the exact same complex of industry's to check on their collegues, a difference however with similar terrains of research is that noone on the whole world except a few specialised institutes can check on them(1). i see so much room for abuse in all to many familiar shapes i can't but desperately want to bring this under your attention.<br />as an example (and i must say in my lust for science one that i have taken quite seriously) i would point at the research that concluded that sarah " the mythical incubator for the mtdna of the jewish) has been interpreted as teh most recent mutation in in mtDNA) compelling research, but with it's jewish authors as it might be as reliable as the official story about AIDS. <br /> <br />wich is a fine example whereas if such research could be easily checked upon or replicated, the property's of the aids virus to be a recombinant result of several recognised cattle viruses (sheep vishnu virus, a bovine i forgot what virus and 1 more) would be common knowledge among people like you(us).<br /> <br /><br />(1) wich is as far as i am aware not as much teh case for any other known analytical method applied, eg. chemical analyses (that is far less complex and intricate usually), or eyewitness (that can be conflicted even outside the offical channels)onixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03063983314231972946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36193672527020777202010-02-12T10:23:20.406+02:002010-02-12T10:23:20.406+02:00Marnie: the term "Caucasian" as used in ...Marnie: the term "Caucasian" as used in USA "racial categories" does not just lack of any anthropometrical precise meaning (excludes South Asians arbitrarily) but it's also a term that lacks cultural universality: it's nothing but parochial slang. <br /><br />The term "Caucasoid" is at least better defined and has some pretense of scientific precision. I'm not much in favor of using racial categories but in anthropology sometimes becomes too convenient to avoid their use. But, if we're going to use them, let at least be precise.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24486320322097182442010-02-12T10:15:30.751+02:002010-02-12T10:15:30.751+02:00"When and where did the 'Caucasoids' ..."When and where did the 'Caucasoids' first form?"<br /><br />IMO it's a process that began with the colonization of West Eurasia some 50 Kya. It is not a terribly homogeneous category but more like the "standard" morphotype of that West Eurasian population, which has certain homogeneity, nothing else. In fact, by extension it also applies to all or most South Asians (who are not that different), hence we could consider it has a South Asian origin after all.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12607989252269728292010-02-12T05:39:38.738+02:002010-02-12T05:39:38.738+02:00Terry and Maju,
Not to be the semantics police, b...Terry and Maju,<br /><br />Not to be the semantics police, but I increasingly think that the most useful thing to do is to name a people by <br /><br />1. Their self described name, or <br /><br />2. By their country, geographic region or continent of origin according to a documented history.<br /><br />Thus:<br /><br />African-American<br /><br />Caucasian for someone with a genetic makeup that is thought to be dominated by a connection with people from the Caucasus.<br /><br />European, when Caucasian is not as clear.<br /><br />Asian<br /><br />Breton<br /><br />Hellenic person <br /><br />Inuit<br /><br />Ashanti, Fante (according to 1 but Ghanaian according to 2.)<br /><br />Chumash<br /><br />Bedouin<br /><br />Algonquin<br /><br />Berber<br /><br />Quebecois<br /><br />Cajun, but also American.<br /><br />North or South American indigenous person.<br /><br />But I try to be flexible and just get at the meaning of what a person is trying to say, even if they say something that is technically or politically incorrect.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36629262550141056272010-02-12T03:13:38.312+02:002010-02-12T03:13:38.312+02:00Thanks for that correction. OK. When and where d...Thanks for that correction. OK. When and where did the 'Caucasoids' first form? Or are they, like everybody else, a mixture?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76344277771790700882010-02-12T02:07:59.932+02:002010-02-12T02:07:59.932+02:00"these questions may have a connection to whe..."these questions may have a connection to when and where the true Caucasoids first appeared and how they expanded throughout the different world regions". <br /><br />There were Caucasoids nearly two million years ago, if you're referring to ancestral humans who lived near the Caucasus Mountains. What's more those first Caucasoids may have expanded as far as Flores.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80397535863954003582010-02-12T02:02:19.877+02:002010-02-12T02:02:19.877+02:00"Race is a loaded word".
That's t..."Race is a loaded word". <br /><br />That's the problem. We need to come up with some neutral term, but any term we come up with would rapidly be misused in the same way. Subspecies is a possibility, it means basically the same thing. But the 'sub' bit, to many, imediately suggests 'inferior', so we're back to square one.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26100822533621538812010-02-11T21:42:31.848+02:002010-02-11T21:42:31.848+02:00Ponto,
Thanks for your comments.
I'm don'...Ponto,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />I'm don't know much about the internal politics of 23andMe or any of the other companies offering a similar service.<br /><br />My comments above are quite specific as to how the presentation of genetic information could be improved to lessen the confusion in the general public.<br /><br />I also feel that the state-of-the-art in genetics often does not yet allow us to know the things we are most interested in.<br /><br />Race is a loaded word. It can be quite divisive and is hard to define. Where do you draw the line? At a national boundary, at a continent? When?<br /><br />At the same time, I am not saying that race and even nuanced genetic difference between say, the Scots and the English, does not exist. It does. Check out Dienekes link for "Greek Autosomal DNA." Look at the Eigenvector 1 vs Eigenvector 2 graphs for Europeans. You can see ever so slightly separated distributions.<br /><br />It would be odd to think of a world in which everybody looked and thought exactly the same.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments on the closeness or not in genetic difference between various groups. To be honest, I think it is difficult at this point to know anything conclusively. <br /><br />Enjoy your kids.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48981080343750262382010-02-11T13:49:38.415+02:002010-02-11T13:49:38.415+02:00That seems a contradiction to the Africans [Sub Sa...<i>That seems a contradiction to the Africans <b>[Sub Saharan Africans]</b> are so diverse scenario when they share a high % with other unrelated Africans. Same with East Asians. Europeans are more genetically diverse to each other.</i><br /><br />This should have to do with the homogenizing effects of the relatively recent true Negroid (Bantu?) and true Mongoloid expansions. A similar homogenizing expansion probably occurred in Europe (and also in West Asia and North Africa) with the Neolithic, but either its effects were more limited than those of these two expansions, or the expanding population(s) was/were genetically more diverse and varied than theirs. It could also be a mixture of these two factors. <br /><br />Interestingly, these questions may have a connection to when and where the true Caucasoids first appeared and how they expanded throughout the different world regions.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2480892083802186882010-02-11T10:17:22.682+02:002010-02-11T10:17:22.682+02:00Not interested in sand castles or castles in the s...Not interested in sand castles or castles in the sky. Lets be specific to the discussion.<br /><br />I don't think 23andMe are flim flam artists. I don't think much of them but they are sincere in what they try to do. They just failed for me. Then 23andMe are predominated by mixed Northern European Americans and Ashkenazim Jews. Southern Europeans like me, they offer nothing, and the Americans treat 23andMe as their private club which unfortunately reduces the intellectual content to moronic levels.<br /><br />I, personally, have found no insights from my SNPs except from looking up the results of the raw data, and reading other sources of information like Promethease. Polako said something about the closeness of East Asians to each other. On 23andMe, East Asians, Chinese and Japanese, score high genetic similarly to each other, over 71%. Sub Saharan Africans likewise score over 71% with each other. This is in unrelated individuals. Parent and child share on average 80%. Unrelated Europeans score less genetic similarly, with Northern Europeans having more similarity to each other than Southern Europeans do with each other.<br /><br />That seems a contradiction to the Africans are so diverse scenario when they share a high % with other unrelated Africans. Same with East Asians. Europeans are more genetically diverse to each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33095647195064832952010-02-11T04:22:17.962+02:002010-02-11T04:22:17.962+02:00"But each sand-castle is made of a different-..."But each sand-castle is made of a different-coloured, or different-shaped if you prefer, sand. They mix and form new castles, and the process repeats."<br /><br />Yeah, it is hard for us to accept, but great too.<br /><br />Thank you for the information on the ducks, etc. It will take me a few days to digest. Much appreciated.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34821803072457945012010-02-11T04:00:22.620+02:002010-02-11T04:00:22.620+02:00"I hope we don't end up with a bunch of f..."I hope we don't end up with a bunch of flattened out sand. How boring". <br /><br />But each sand-castle is made of a different-coloured, or different-shaped if you prefer, sand. They mix and form new castles, and the process repeats.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45218822236031805582010-02-11T02:50:30.920+02:002010-02-11T02:50:30.920+02:00"In a related topic, your 'duck' pape..."In a related topic, your 'duck' paper suggests that dabbling ducks are under a particular kind of selection, because they move around so much". <br /><br />I assume it's actually geographic diversification. They have become separated by relatively impassable geographic boundaries. I have an essay on the subject here: <br /><br />http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2008/01/human-evolution-on-trial-species-by.html<br /><br />Rather long, but you'll get the idea quickly. <br /><br />"Terry, do you have any thoughts on this, and if so, could you speak on this". <br /><br />I've done my best to explain the idea here: <br /><br />http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/search/label/Human%20Evolution%20On%20Trial%20-%20Pedigrees<br /><br />Quote, 'Now, if we go back to these hypothetical million people from 500 years ago and imagine their one million hypothetical descendants today it is easy to see that the various genes present in the original population will not be present in the modern population in the same proportions. There will be more of some; less of others, some will have been totally eliminated and new mutations may have appeared'. <br /><br />And here: <br /><br />http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/search/label/Human%20Evolution%20on%20Trial%20-%20Hybrid%20Vigour%20And%20Inbreeding<br /><br />Quote, 'If some new characteristic in an inbred population is advantageous to the species as a whole the genes will be able to spread into any incoming population by selection in the hybrid zone. A hybrid zone of just one fertile hybrid individual is sufficient to transfer genes of course. In some cases the incoming group may be inbred as well. The spread of the characteristic could then be helped by restoration of heterosis in hybrids between the inbred population and the incoming group'. <br /><br />Considering any species as one single population we see that genes are emerging and becoming extinct all the time. So the genes needn't all arise at the one time. Each individual gene has its own history, as Karafet suggested as much as ten years ago. <br /><br />http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet_et_al.1999.pdfterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81646796029134823042010-02-11T01:46:07.195+02:002010-02-11T01:46:07.195+02:00Terry,
"And does this selection occur mainly...Terry,<br /><br />"And does this selection occur mainly when the chromosome is single (males) or double (females)?" <br /><br />"And many genes on that X chromosome originate much earlier than do modern haplogroups. I strongly suspect that each of our chromosomes have sections differing in their variability, and their age."<br /><br /><br />Terry, do you have any thoughts on this, and if so, could you speak on this. <br /><br />In a related topic, your "duck" paper suggests that dabbling ducks are under a particular kind of selection, because they move around so much. I couldn't make out the details, as they were quite technical. Any thoughts?Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34185125337698286242010-02-11T01:40:29.550+02:002010-02-11T01:40:29.550+02:00Dienikes,
"A good analogy to think about is ...Dienikes,<br /><br />"A good analogy to think about is "castles in the sand". If you build a few castles in the sand next to each other there is clearly continuity between them, but they are also distinct."<br /><br />"As time passes by, air and water will move sand grains from a castle to the beach and from beach to castle. Eventually the landscape will be flattened."<br /><br />Some sandcastles have multiple piles of sand. And the slopes and sizes of different sand piles vary.<br /><br />I hope we don't end up with a bunch of flattened out sand. How boring. It would be nice, instead, if some sand piles were saved from the incoming tide, while at the same time, some new sand piles were built from the old.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23313517730742005572010-02-11T01:37:57.794+02:002010-02-11T01:37:57.794+02:00"It suggests that this X differentiation is s..."It suggests that this X differentiation is subject to selection, although it is cautious to suggest what kind of selection this might be". <br /><br />And does this selection occur mainly when the chromosome is single (males) or double (females)? <br /><br />"It is suggesting that the X chromosome has several sections that are more variable, population wise, than the rest of the autosomal DNA". <br /><br />And many genes on that X chromosome originate much earlier than do modern haplogroups. I strongly suspect that each of our chromosomes have sections differing in their variability, and their age.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58690836475322076092010-02-11T01:31:37.232+02:002010-02-11T01:31:37.232+02:00Maju,
Thanks for you comments above.
I finally ...Maju, <br /><br />Thanks for you comments above.<br /><br />I finally had a chance to look at this paper more closely, even though the full text is not yet fully published.<br /><br />It is true that, in the grand sceme of things, there is very little difference between humans across the globe.<br /><br />But beyond that, this paper seems to be saying something really interesting.<br /><br />It is suggesting that the X chromosome has several sections that are more variable, population wise, than the rest of the autosomal DNA.<br /><br />It suggests that this X differentiation is subject to selection, although it is cautious to suggest what kind of selection this might be.<br /><br />And I think it is cautiously suggesting that selection is different in men and women precisely because X expression is different in men and women.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />MarnieMarniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81197641568383986772010-02-09T03:54:36.382+02:002010-02-09T03:54:36.382+02:00Some possible comparisons between humans and these...Some possible comparisons between humans and these other species: <br /><br />Cattle, especially interesting concerning bison and wisent: <br /><br />http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msh064v1.pdf<br /><br />And this is very similar: <br /><br />http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v88/n1/full/6800007a.html<br /><br />This deals with the diversity at a closer level, breeds: <br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/93/10/5131.full.pdf+html<br /><br />And ducks, although we don't get any idea of timing of splits: <br /><br />http://128.197.80.10/Auk1999.pdf<br /><br />Hope some of you find something of interest.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com