Genographic Project: All people in the world are Black (African) on the inside.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 8:26 AM GMT
    According to new DNA sequencing by the Genographic Project (National Geographic), Everyone (Black, White, Asian, Native American, etc...) in the world today are descendants of a single man in Africa. Offspring of other men from that time are no longer around.

    When a group of people moved out of Africa about 60,000 years ago into the middle east, they mixed with a different group of human called Neanderthal. The descendants of this group are White, Asian, Native Australian and Native American.

    So basically there is just one race today. The Neanderthal comes close to be another race, but they are extinct. Scientifically the word race is meaningless. There is no distinct human species. Even the Neanderthal and modern man are from the same root a million years ago. This video explain the science behind this. Enjoy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW-0by_hZYI&feature=related
  • agro

    Posts: 199

    May 02, 2012 8:53 AM GMT
    When people say "race" they usually refer to "ethnic background".

    Also:

    precurser4tWhen a group of people moved out of Africa about 60,000 years ago into the middle east, they mixed with a different group of human called Neanderthal. The descendants of this group are White, Asian, Native Australian and Native American.


    I'm fairly certain that this is only a theory, and not fact, since there's not enough evidence at the moment that says that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens sapiens were different or the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 8:56 AM GMT
    I just want to make sure that I understand this: you're saying that Neanderthals and Denisovans, who arose in Eurasia and later interbred with migratory human population groups outside of Africa, are the same race as modern African human populations?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 9:02 AM GMT
    stark93 saidI'm fairly certain that this is only a theory, and not fact, since there's not enough evidence at the moment that says that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens sapiens were different or the same.


    No, actually, the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes have allowed us to compare shared allele frequency between populations. Middle eastern, European, and Asian populations carry a 1-4% greater shared allele frequency with Neanderthals when compared to African populations. When any two African populations are compared to Neanderthals, there is no statistical difference in shared allele frequency, which is what you would expect to occur in divergent populations without gene flow. Oceanic populations also possess an additional 5% shared alleles with Denisovans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 10:20 AM GMT
    NorthCountyDudeSD said
    stark93 saidI'm fairly certain that this is only a theory, and not fact, since there's not enough evidence at the moment that says that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens sapiens were different or the same.


    No, actually, the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes have allowed us to compare shared allele frequency between populations. Middle eastern, European, and Asian populations carry a 1-4% greater shared allele frequency with Neanderthals when compared to African populations. When any two African populations are compared to Neanderthals, there is no statistical difference in shared allele frequency, which is what you would expect to occur in divergent populations without gene flow. Oceanic populations also possess an additional 5% shared alleles with Denisovans.


    ... You are right on the button here. There are a number of papers on PubMed in comparing the various genomes. There is a theory that about 1million years ago, the Neanderthal and the modern man came from the same species, mostly because the genome is so similar, i.e. same number of chromosomes and genes. The nearest species, the ape, has 48 chromosomes, where both Neanderthal and modern man has 46 chromosomes. But correct me if you have more information.

    I like a previous response that 'race' is ethnic background... versus race as a 'species' ... as 'elitists' use the later to separate... thus the word 'racism' ... The bottom line is that all human today came from a single man from Africa - that what the Y chromosome markers says. That's amazing that outward features of various people are so 'skin deep' and to have 'check boxes' for various 'race' ... is scientifically 'inhuman' .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 11:13 AM GMT
    Svante Pääbo, one of the main researchers and whose name you'll see on most of the papers discussing ancient DNA research, spoke at TED to explain the results of the genome project and how they show evidence of interbreeding.
    http://blog.ted.com/2011/08/30/dna-clues-to-our-inner-neanderthal-svante-paabo-on-ted-com/

    Otherwise, the pubMed articles that you're going to be most interested in are the ones by Green et al, specifically Green et al 2010 and possibly Green et al 2009 if you want more of a defense of the techniques that they're using to remove modern human DNA contamination.

    Modern humans may have developed in Africa but scientists can test your DNA to reliably determine your race. Saying that all modern humans share an ancient origin in Africa doesn't make us black or even African in a modern sense. Populations diverged again since the ancient migrations out of Africa and as a result of interbreeding. Many of these genetic differences could be simple pigment adaptations to differing sunlight levels to strike the right balance between UV protection and vitamin D production, but many genetic differences have medical significance for later in life diseases, metabolic function, immunity, etc. So while it might be socially admirable to promote racial harmony, trying to downplay real variation which exists between racial groupings could be medically unhelpful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 11:46 AM GMT
    oooohhhhh ... thanks for the info bro.... for a biochemist you speak like a population geneticist..... LOVE it. ... but no offense, people are more alike than different, relatively speaking. ... about the medical thing, if there is one allele difference, the proteome will be likely different .......... so yeah... but damm .... the alcohol is taking over lol...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 12:32 PM GMT
    If needed we could swap organs if were a match or blood if need be, that should be enough for anyone to realize mankind. Somehow melonin takes an evil toll on the thoughts of some.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 12:47 PM GMT
    I'll take my Affirmative Action now please...icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 12:48 PM GMT
    precurser4t saidoooohhhhh ... thanks for the info bro.... for a biochemist you speak like a population geneticist..... LOVE it. ... but no offense, people are more alike than different, relatively speaking. ... about the medical thing, if there is one allele difference, the proteome will be likely different .......... so yeah... but damm .... the alcohol is taking over lol...



    I just did a paper on just this topic less than a week ago so it'll be fresh in my mind until I have to present it. Also, I'm getting a biochemistry degree to do genetic engineering work, so yeah.…

    The thing that you have to consider is that a lot of these statistics that people state, such as that humans are 98.8% similar to chimpanzees, etc is that they're not comparing the entire genome, they're comparing genes for SNPs. Non-coding DNA mutations that affect gene expression, such as the mutations that allow for lactase persistence, the number of copies of genes, the location of these, or mutations that involve more than just a single nucleotide difference are not included in these estimates. So there's really a lot more genetic variation out there than popular science notions suggest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 1:05 PM GMT
    I always understood that differences between population groups based on genes are considered racial, whereas differences based on culture are considered ethnic. Is this incorrect?

    As for race, I'm gonna suggest something that may be politically incorrect. I look upon race as being analogous to the term "breed" used for animals. For example, all dogs are dogs and can mate (within functional limitations of size difference).

    Yet we all know how different dog breeds can be. Compare a St. Bernard to a Dachshund and you wonder if they aren't totally different species. Yet they're both dogs.

    Compared to dogs and other animal species, the differences between human races (breeds) is negligible. We mostly focus (fixate?) on relatively minor variations like skin color and facial features. Yet our general shape, height and weight are roughly the same across the globe, Pygmies being one the greatest exceptions of which I can think, along with the tall Maasai, and even that size range isn't as great as that seen in the dog example.

    (The weakness in the dog analogy, of course, is that breeds are mostly a result of selective breeding. But then, when you examine it, so are humans themselves, self-directed through conscious mating choices. The point being that dogs remain dogs despite the breeding, and humans remain humans despite environmental influences and mating choices.)

    So that as I've grown older I've begun to lose all sense of race, which was never very strong in the first place. Issues of skin color and other variants are too insignificant to mean anything to me. A human is a human is a human. Rather, I find differences in culture and its outgrowth politics to be of far more practical importance to me, especially as they are the result of choices, rather than of genetics.

    It somewhat echoes the arguments about being gay, choice vs. genetics. The outcomes of genetics must be accepted, whereas cultural choices may be questioned & judged.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 4:10 PM GMT
    Quite interesting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 5:53 PM GMT
    precurser4t saidAccording to new DNA sequencing by the Genographic Project (National Geographic), Everyone (Black, White, Asian, Native American, etc...) in the world today are descendants of a single man in Africa.
    I thought evolution already proved that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 7:28 PM GMT
    @NorthCountyDudeSD ... Love to read your paper as I'm curious about genome wide association and copy number variation (CNV) as the price for sequencing the whole genome will be $1000.

    Art_Deco So yes, breeds are like races. All dogs came from a single species wolf. And all people came from a single species (homo sapiens)

    The Genographic project is inspiring in that it seems to unite people with the Legacy Fund to preserve indigenous culture (small is beautiful).

    Philosophically, I'm for eliminating words that causes divisions, greed, wars, environmental destruction. Words like race, religion, big capitalism, big government, etc... People behave more like virus - expand. conquer, and then self destroy via destroying their environment. Less then 2% of the lower 48 states are wilderness, 5% including Alaska.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 9:37 PM GMT
    NorthCountyDudeSD saidSvante Pääbo, one of the main researchers and whose name you'll see on most of the papers discussing ancient DNA research, spoke at TED to explain the results of the genome project and how they show evidence of interbreeding.
    http://blog.ted.com/2011/08/30/dna-clues-to-our-inner-neanderthal-svante-paabo-on-ted-com/

    Otherwise, the pubMed articles that you're going to be most interested in are the ones by Green et al, specifically Green et al 2010 and possibly Green et al 2009 if you want more of a defense of the techniques that they're using to remove modern human DNA contamination.

    Modern humans may have developed in Africa but scientists can test your DNA to reliably determine your race. Saying that all modern humans share an ancient origin in Africa doesn't make us black or even African in a modern sense. Populations diverged again since the ancient migrations out of Africa and as a result of interbreeding. Many of these genetic differences could be simple pigment adaptations to differing sunlight levels to strike the right balance between UV protection and vitamin D production, but many genetic differences have medical significance for later in life diseases, metabolic function, immunity, etc. So while it might be socially admirable to promote racial harmony, trying to downplay real variation which exists between racial groupings could be medically unhelpful.


    Dna test can't determine your race, rather the probability that you belong in a given 'group'.
    The medical significance of genetic difference is indeed an hot topic for pharma industry, as it could allow it get Fda approval for drug who would otherwise be rejected out of 'genetic group' related adverse effect, hence all the work on DNA chips for cheap patient screening.

    But there is a common bias in USA out of immigration history.
    Genetically, 'afro americans' comes from a limited subset of Africa continent, while a ethiopian might very well have a significantly different genetic profile.
    And an australian arborigenal would have to check the 'black' box in a US clinical study screening file, while he is very different from an west african.

    As far as I know, genetic variation is usually continuous between populations, and can't be used to pinpoint geographic origin of a given individual.

    The racial grouping is an arbitrary social construct. It's based on visible differences, not really on how culturally and/or genetically homogeneous or different the so called races are.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2012 9:37 PM GMT
    Duh...lol. It goes back to adam and eve and noah.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 2:37 AM GMT
    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna

    "Frudakis' test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person's origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error. "

    I don't see what's wrong with suggesting that human subpopulations which have historically been isolated contain genetic variations which are adaptive to their historic environment and way of living, and that because of genetic bottlenecks and diverse climates humans have developed many different allele variations from each other which conform the to phenotypical variations observable between populations.

    Of course, I want to create genetically modified clones of myself that have infrared light sensing pigments as opposed to the normal red color spectrum, in the hope that they would develop the ability to observe physical changes in blood flow within humans as a result of cognitive behaviors like lying. I might be working off of a genetic moral worldview that has progressed beyond chaotic neutral into full fledged blue and orange.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 5:43 AM GMT
    Clones would be interesting for testing transgenic ideas, like glow-in-the-dark puppies, cats, pigs, and monkeys... and soon ape, then ... people. See infrared would be an awesome transgenic feature (which animal does it? bats?) .... while at it, I would like wings in the summer, furs in the winter, ... and how about a 12 inch dick ... can we do that soon?
    [url][/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2012 5:48 AM GMT
    Tallathlete24 saidDuh...lol. It goes back to adam and eve and noah.
    Does this mean Adam, Eve, and Noah were black? icon_eek.gif

    BTW, I'm fully aware that Africa is a continent, and the inhabitants have varying colors of skin.