DNA as it relates to ethnicity is difficult to comprehend. My ex-boss, who is a microbiologist, said that we are all alike under our skin when it comes to DNA. I've been reading something that might interest DNA enthusiasts on the forum. Here is the link: http://www.racesci.org/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/ and here is a short quote from it. This puts a little perspective on why race is so difficult to discern from DNA anaylsis with today's technology.
Right, WY What is forgotten today is that 100 years ago, scientists and sociologists use the term race to refer to different cultures, ie the German "race," the Jewish "race," ect. I laugh when I see our government hiring based on race and I can predict that the next Big Thing will be lawsuits taking apart that whole practice--as it should. Look at how shaky that whole idea is: I have a friend name Lily whose mother is white and father is black. Lily looks black, light-skinned though, but is she as "black" as say a person wherein both her parents are black? If Lily got a job over this other person, could the "100%" black person sue saying Lily wasn't really "black?" Just what is the legal definition of "black?" Back in the days of segregation, the term "negro" was applied using what was called the "one drop rule." This was the belief that if a white person had even "one drop" of negro blood in him or her, that person was officially negro. Pretty goofy, huh? Well not really! Today we have no better description of what "African American" means, for example. A famous DNA study was released a few years ago and one black man had gene characteristics from Sweden, Central America, Africa and Germany! But the guy looked "black." So this whole nuerotic race concept is a house of cards. It's really about culture, and yet it's not. After all, the Irish and the English are hardly the same culture, just as Russians and American whites aren't the same culture, yet we are considered all white. The Chinese and the Japanese are considered "Asian" and yet they are hardly the same culture and often get insulted that many Europeans can't tell the difference between Japanese and Asian features. So what is the definition of a race?
You've just underscored why it's not possible to definitely define what "race" someone is through DNA analysis. The old "one drop of black blood" standard still is around, I'm afraid. We don't have a lot of prejudice around here; yet, a child of a black man and a white woman is labeled "black." Science has pretty much negated that bull. Take our skin off, and we are all pretty much alike, physically, inside. One has to look a lot deeper for the truth of someone's character. Race and color has nothing to do with it.
Right--plus all modern humans immigrated out of Africa around 100,000 years ago so if you go back far enough, we're all Africans. So when's the cut-off point? How many generations ago?
Cut-off point Where's the cut-off point for what? You mean when we turned from black to white? Or did we turn from black to brown to tan to white? None of us is white. We are all bleached out blacks. I knew I loved those old spirituals for a reason.
DNA and "race" I think there would be less controversy if DNA analysis were to focus on traits and not try to plug those traits into a particular "race". Our traits are supposed to be in our DNA, down to an astonishing level of detail; the challenge is in associating genomes and proteins within the DNA, with the traits. The genomes are now supposedly "mapped" (by the Human Genome Project) but there remains a task of mapping the interconnecting proteins which would form correlations and associations between genomes and traits. As this correlative task progresses, the science of DNA analysis will similarly progress toward the ability to form somewhat of a "composite sketch" of the DNA's donor, and simplistic and major traits are already there, such as the donor's sex. I do agree that racial boundaries are very fuzzy. Many mixed or "in between" examples exist, not just as individuals but as nations of people. Khazari and Uzbek people of the former Soviet Republics, now there's kinda/sorta for you: some European influence, some Asian influence, and some Semitic influence. Some people breed more homogenously, making a distinct feature more distinct and present, while others will breed more heterogenously, to either blur distinctions or create new distinct groupings of traits. Whatever grouping is there, though, I think that science should eventually become able to anticipate them through analysis. A more simplistic, but apparently promising, method, is described here: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/06_03/serial.shtml
well a gene pool has to be isolated for centuries to remain "pure"--places like (parts of)sub-Saharan Africa, parts of South America--places that didn't have lots of interbreeding between "races."
Re: Cut-off point That gave me a creepy visual of Michael Jackson for a second or two there. But yeah, characteristics that are distinct at various regional origins of humans, indicate more toward different adaptations to the different environments, than anything else. In cold Europe my ancestors didn't need melanin to protect them from UV radiation as much as the Homo Erectus cousins they left behind in Africa. Lighter skin is also better-protected from frostbite, which people in Africa obviously don't have to worry about so much. Given a long enough time period, humans in general inhabiting a colder climate will tend to "bleach" their skin lighter through breeding selection and natural selection, while closer to the equator human populations will tend to breed and select in a way that darkens skin tone over time. The main thing that influenced a class distinction or value association to the lightness of skin tone, was simply that a ruling or more privileged class would tend to, over time, develop a lighter skin tone than the workers or peasants or slaves, because the latter group would be out in the sun plowing the fields and getting tanned and/or burnt all the time, and the former would not. In India that got formalized into their caste system, which basically tended to perpetuate the social order they had at the time it was enforced (the lighter got lighter and the darker got darker, as a result of the different living conditions). In medieval Europe a term for a beautiful woman was that she was "fair"--light in skin complexion, which was simply an indication that she was a privileged woman and not someone who would be out plowing fields or gathering firewood. Racists who see the correlation of light complexion with social success, draw the wrong conclusion (that having the lighter skin allowed them to rise to greater dominance in the culture). Rather than a cause of people's ability to rise, it was simply a result of those who, having attained power and privilege, were able to stay out of the sun longer. Pharaohs were probably of a much lighter skin complexion than the common Egyptian citizen, but they wouldn't have been Pharaoh due to being lighter--they'd have been lighter due to being Pharaoh (and shaded from radiation). Egyptian culture valued a mid-range complexion though. In the tomb of Tut Ankh Amun, there is a very simple representation of this attitude, in a set of figurines depicting a BROWN Egyptian standing and holding out a dominant club, and before the Egyptian you see a white Semitic slave, and a black Nubian slave, each bowing in obeisance. I guess you could say, anthropology and history are hobbies for me. They fascinate me, I guess because a better understanding of the past gives more of a glimpse of what really makes the present "tick".
I agree I agree with the posts on this thread but thought you might find these articles interesting: http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=3584 http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louis...-CO--ChaseInvestiga&&news&newsflash-louisiana I noticed that the BPD was using this company - maybe they also used it in the JBR investigation. *snip* BOULDER, Colo. (AP) -- With the trail growing cold, police investigating a six-year-old beating death turned to an unusual source for clues: a DNA lab that normally helps people determine their own ethnic makeup.
Hey Adriane do black racists like Louis Farrakhan draw the wrong conclusion when they say melalin skin pigment makes blacks genetically superior?
Any effort to link adaptations to regional climates (characterized as "race"), with superiority, is nonsense. Darker skin color has "superior" UV radiation protection, and lighter skin color has "superior" frostbite protection, but neither is objectively "superior". And within each set of skin tones, it's pretty easy to find examples of admirable and successful people, and those less admirable and those less successful. Whenever a white acquaintance starts talking a big gab about the black "ghetto", I take them for a ride to visit the white trailer parks. It demonstrates relatively equal distribution of personality traits, statistically speaking.
Hispanic OR Indian? I read these articles earlier, Texan. It's interesting, but I'm not convinced. I'm not saying that someday they may be able to narrow down the ethnicity of a person through DNA, at least as closely as it can be narrowed down because of all the reasons given above, nor am I necessarily saying this lab is making erroneous claims. BUT, Hispanic OR Indian? Isn't that a little far apart? Indians are Native Americans, right? Or is this lab talking about natives of India? Hispanic/Puerto Rico isn't exactly a close match to Native American, is it? If their technology is so good, why this disparity? If they had said Hispanic or Mexican - that would make sense. Is there something I'm missing, here? Perhaps they are going entirely on skin color? I wonder if skin color can be determined through DNA, I really don't know. Indians and Hispanics might be said to have similar tones of skin color. I am really confused. I don't get this Hispanic or Indian thing.
Re: Hispanic OR Indian? No. The people of Latin America are largely a mixture of Spanish and Native American ancestry.
