← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Howling Privateer
Thread ID: 19013 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-07-07
2005-07-07 04:00 | User Profile
[SIZE=4][B]Deep Haplotype Divergence and Long-Range Linkage Disequilibrium at Xp21.1 Provide Evidence that Humans Descend from a Structured Ancestral Population[/B][/SIZE]
ABSTRACT
[I]Fossil evidence links human ancestry with populations that evolved modern gracile morphology in Africa 130,000 – 160,000 years ago. Yet fossils alone do not provide clear answers to the question of whether the ancestors of all modern Homo sapiens comprised a single African population or an amalgamation of distinct archaic populations. DNA sequence data have consistently supported a single origin model in which anatomically modern Africans expanded and completely replaced all other archaic hominin populations. Aided by a novel experimental design, we present the first genetic evidence that statistically rejects the null hypothesis that our species descends from a single, historically panmictic population. [B]In a global sample of 42 X chromosomes, two African individuals carry a lineage of non-coding 17.5 kilobase sequence that has survived for over one million years without any clear traces of ongoing recombination with other lineages at this locus.[/B] These patterns of deep haplotype divergence and long-range linkage disequilibrium are best explained by a prolonged period of ancestral population subdivision followed by relatively recent interbreeding. This inference supports human evolution models that incorporate admixture between divergent African branches of the genus Homo.[/I]
[url]http://www.genetics.org/cgi/rapidpdf/genetics.105.041095v1.pdf[/url]
2005-07-16 01:26 | User Profile
Interesting paper. But I wish I understood linkage disequilibrium.
2005-07-16 03:54 | User Profile
Does somebody have a plain English translator?
2005-07-16 22:13 | User Profile
Just from the excerpt, I think the point is that their analysis rejects the previously held belief that Whites evolved from Negroids. :cowboy:
2005-07-16 22:20 | User Profile
So, negros evolved from monkees and we evolved from negros?
Ayyyyyyy mama, I hate to think where Cubans evolves from and specially Ponce :confused: hahahahahah, don't say it.
2005-07-25 10:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Does somebody have a plain English translator?[/QUOTE] Sure. [url]http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/garrigan_2005_structured_ancestral.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Snouter]Just from the excerpt, I think the point is that their analysis rejects the previously held belief that Whites evolved from Negroids. :cowboy:[/QUOTE]
Actually, the study doesn't refute the "Out of Africa" model, nor it supports the multiregional one. But blatant flaws in the uniregional dogma are pointed out, especially considering Negroid populations of Western Africa, and consequently the American Negro. So if it is verified by later papers, some or many Blacks might well have kept archaic sapiens features, and if they did so, archaic sapiens genetic combinations. Although this will never be written in bold in the scientific litterature for PC reasons, it could explain a lot of things considering their general intelligence and their weaker ability with delay for gratification, for example.
By the way, the uniregional model doesn't imply that Whites evolved from Blacks strictly speaking, it raises the theory that Whites share a common ancestry with Blacks by ancient, gradual, and very slow migration stages. Thus, Whites would have evolved from a ancestor they share with NE Asians 40.000 years ago. That's what the molecular clock and unmutated haplotypes on mitochondrial DNA and chromosome Y seems to reveal, tough the validity for molecular clock among humans is also discussed. The "Whites came from Blacks" motto is just a piece of contemporary universalist journalism. In fact, they would come from a proto-eurasian population which would come from another population that would come from another, ..., that would come from migrating Blacks.
Today, I'm personally prone to believe the so-called mixed model, which means that we do share some "recent" common ancestry with sapiens individuals who distantly descended from Black Eastern Africans, combined with indigenous non-sapiens populations of Siberian Asia (descendents of the Man of Bejing?), and possibly a bit of Neanderthal admixture for Europeans as skeletal evidence might well demonstrate (see Trinkaus).
But even the uniregional model is compatible with the existence of human subspecies, and therefore human races. Humans evolve faster than other primates, since they are able to change their environment by migration.
Of course, for creationists, all of above is total nonsense.
2005-07-25 11:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Of course, for creationists, all of above is total nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely. One could understand God as the 'intelligent design' behind it all, in an Old Earth view. Scripture is not a science textbook. To believe Scripture, one must of course believe we are all descended from Adam, at whatever point he was created, AND that God seperated and appointed the bounds of the different Nations.
Then, too, look at dogs. They all share a common ancestery, but are incredibly varied as far as size, intelligence, etc.--but breed them back together and you git similiar looking mutts...
I think the fact that we can inter-breed :dung: with negroes etc. shows some common species ancestery...
2005-07-25 12:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=confederate_commando]Not entirely. One could understand God as the 'intelligent design' behind it all, in an Old Earth view. Scripture is not a science textbook. To believe Scripture, one must of course believe we are all descended from Adam, at whatever point he was created, AND that God seperated and appointed the bounds of the different Nations.
Certainly, and I must recognize that nothing can scientifically refute the 'intelligent design', and that many mainstream scientists are true believers, but I was talking about the kind of creationists that deny the theory of evolution. Yet evolution still doesn't contradict the Creation as it could also be the will of God and it lefts plenty of space for the [I]Libre arbitre[/I] (free choice?). There are a lot of evolutionists in Europe who are deep-rooted and convinced Catholics or Protestants, it's almost solely an American thing and I didn't find why. My comment about Creationism was just a side note.
Then, too, look at dogs. They all share a common ancestery, but are incredibly varied as far as size, intelligence, etc.--but breed them back together and you git similiar looking mutts...
Indeed, and genetic distances among dogs are lesser than among many human populations. The common denial for that matter is that dog races are man-made crossbreedings which occured faster than if they would have been done by nature, but the human species is also by nature (or design) a living creature that evolves and changes faster than other mammals. Thus the credo is irrelevant for us.
The only truth in the universalist statement is that races are fuzzy sets in many occurences (North Africans, Arabs, Chicanos, East Indians, roughly one-third of Humanity).
I think the fact that we can inter-breed :dung: with negroes etc. shows some common species ancestery...[/QUOTE] And the fact that we find it not very appealing, to say the least, is not "a social construct" (how many Japanese go with Africans?) but a natural built-in reluctance. Multiculturalism, subsequent immigration and the recent race-mixing pathology are the social construct.
2005-07-25 13:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howling Privateer] (how many Japanese go with Africans?) [/QUOTE]
Privateer, I hate to be the bearer of ill tidings, but black men do okay in Japan.
2005-07-25 13:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Privateer, I hate to be the bearer of ill tidings, but black men do okay in Japan.[/QUOTE] There are Blacks in Japan? End of the Samurai then ... It could be a short-term founding effect since Black immigrants in the islands should be far better than the average ghetto preacher.
And with Japanese women in the USA? Because in Paris I never saw a Black + Oriental couple.
2005-07-26 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howling Privateer]There are Blacks in Japan? End of the Samurai then ... It could be a short-term founding effect since Black immigrants in the islands should be far better than the average ghetto preacher.
And with Japanese women in the USA? Because in Paris I never saw a Black + Oriental couple.[/QUOTE]
Supposedly, black men visiting Japan have good luck with the females. It is a flavor of exotic sport ****ing, but I don't think many of them are actually citizens of Japan. The Japs are too savvy (racist) to let that happen to their society.