But it is a useful distinction. This is why I advocate having several 'base genomes' for reference when we develop a genetics module rather than just one. If you have a person who is of Asian extraction, there is a higher probability that they will have the M blood antigen, for example; if the individual is of European origin (note that I do not say 'lives in Europe') then he is probably N and not M.

Jan

But it is a useful distinction. This is why I advocate having several 'base genomes' for reference when we develop a genetics module rather than just one. If you have a person who is of Asian extraction, there is a higher probability that they will have the M blood antigen, for example; if the individual is of European origin (note that I do not say 'lives in Europe') then he is probably N and not M.

Jan

Yes, we will miss out on the random progress of evolution. But if you apply human ingenuity to creating better genetic arrays then we can go faster and produce more useful changes than random mutational events supply.

I figure there will be a three step process:
1. People will exclude detrimental genes: sickle cell; coagulopathies, breast cancer...
2. People will adopt existing positive traits, such as replacing sickle cell trait with Duffy negative. During this phase we may also reactivate some of the archaic genes that we still have but which have lost functionality - for example, we have the gene that allows us to regrow amputated limbs already in our genome...we just do not have the way to turn that gene on.
3. We will innovate genes, perhaps making a body that will not loose bone density in space. During this phase we may insert genes from other species (if we had the tendon attachment points of chimps, we would be a lot stronger without any additional muscles).

It will be an interesting future.

Jan

Every election year, I agree!

But will we (genome) miss out on the unpredictable potentially positive changes evolution brings, e.g., telepathy?
Or will such functions be man-made by studying the genome and modifying it (as in B5)?

Interesting. Thanks.

The situation is as follows: There is only one race, and that is the HUMAN Race! A scientist or three once did a test of DNA from every people group on the planet and lo and behold discovered that there is a tiny infinitesimal percentage of one percent (1%) between the DNA of one people group and that of another.

Those of blended people groupings have what is known as “hybrid vigor”—they may somewhat less prone to genetic-caused diseases than those of same-people-group ancestry.

Sorry, folks, but the espousers of “racial purity”, no matter what guise, are full of sh*t.

devolving or "dissolving" Our politicians love to divide and conquer.

I am sooo glad you asked. I did not want to weigh down my prior email with additional info unless/until someone expressed interest.

Here is an excellent write-up on it:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/ev...

Jan

Our leaf-eating ancestors probably thought that of their strange children who kept killing and eating animals. I think that whether or not we are evolving or devolving right now is moot: We will be able to control what genes our offspring have and most of the detrimental alleles will be discarded.

Jan

From experience of the "Service Brat" (Army, Navy, etc.) subset of "international people," here's a second to "they are different from the people back home." Also, the Experimental Aviation gathering at Oshkosh, WI has the air of a family reunion -- despite being half a million strangers from around the world. As to whether it's nature or nature . . .

"There is evidence that the rate of the fixation of mutations in the human population (ie rate of genetic change) has markedly increased since the Neolithic."

Source?

My thoughts on the subject may be entirely mythic, but that's never stopped me before.
I can understand why homo sapiens' evolution is speeding up. All animals except man conform to suit their environment. Man, for the most part conforms his environment to suit himself. Simple observations shows that the more he changes his environment, the faster his evolution takes place. When primitive tribes fail to change their environment at a certain point, they stop evolving. When those same people are brought into a situation where they are forced to change their environment in order to survive, their evolution starts speeding up. This is not "nature's way" which is why humans, by and large, are outside of the traditional definition of "nature." Which is also why, when speaking of humans, environmentalists (so-called) are full of crap.

I have seen tons of evidence that has made me wonder if the human population is devolving.

When humans first began to care for and extend the lives of our less robust compatriots, continuation of the species was no longer "survival of the fittest." The more sophisticated our medical technology has become, the persistence of detrimental genetic characteristics has naturally increased. My father, who was somewhat Will Rogers-like in his humor, summarized the condition in one sentence: "The culls are breeding."

We're just entering the era of promise for genetic engineering, which offers the solution of gene therapies that could possibly eradicate the more unpleasant inherited conditions. The hazard in a rush to fix things is the distinct possibility of unintended consequences. We don't completely understand the human genome, so we may be blundering into creating more problems than we fix.

Hopefully, sanity and caution will be the guide for genetic tinkering, but humans aren't always careful.

I classify people based on ABC. Attitude yields a Behavior which yields Consequences. As I used to tell the delinquents I worked with, "If you don't like the consequences, better check your attitude."

There certainly can be purebred dogs -- and the relative speed at which a new breed of dogs can be created certainly argues for a rapid ability for genetic variations to occur.

However, maintaining pure breeds of dogs takes careful management, attention to breeding charts and so on. One can get back to 'generic' dog pretty quickly.

Distinct populations can be managed by isolation, or culture, but in a way, classifying them by race is only useful when they interact at which point the margins start being fuzzy.

We can call these populations 'races' if we wish, but I think that it will imply a more definitive distinction than reality supports.

As the author infers, we have to be willing to objectively collect and analyze data or the "world" stays flat. Is there a "race" of subjective "scientists" impeding that process?

Recent 'discoveries' in the DNA of Neanderthal and Dinosovans that are also found in DNA of Europeans and Western Asians, but not Africans, along with others not yet identified in the paleontological record but noted in modern DNA is revealing a new story of our recent (assumed evolutionary time scale) genetic history and the realities of 'race' that the social 'sciences' would rather not have discussed. The PC of the sciences will take a long time to be eliminated from the proper findings of science fact.

When I worked at Kawasaki Robotics, the treasurer said to me one day that "international people" are the same, and they are different from the people back home.

When I was learning to fly, I was at my in-laws for a party. I asked the guy from across the road if he was a pilot. He looked like one to me. He was visibly taken aback, as was at least one of the guys standing there. He said that he flew helicopters in Vietnam. The other neighbor who was surprised that I would ask an out-of-the-blue question like that said, "I didn't know that." NASA was surprised to discover that test pilots tend to have female children.

Just sayin'... "race" is not what you think it is.

There are many distinct populations - distinct culturally, linguistically and genetically: Basque, Sami, pygmy (to name just a few). What you are saying is essentially, "Because there are mongrels there cannot be purebred dogs." Because there is Mary's Igloo does not mean that there are not populations with distinct traits. We can call these populations 'races' if we wish.

Jan

Logically, because some of the races are bogus does not mean that they all are.

Jan

So are there many races on earth? Well there are certainly many ethnic groups. Having given up on an international race table (say ISO-1234) I searched farther and found semi-official tables of ethnic groups. Very large tables.

In perusing them I came upon Mary's Igloo. In the early 1900's there was a woman named Mary who lived on the Seward Peninsula, northeast of Nome. Because of the attraction -- she is rumored to have served good coffee or something, it became a stopping off point and a village grew up around there. They were devastated by the flu epidemic of 1918/1919 and fell into gradual decay. By 1952 the are was abandoned. But there is a recognized ethnic group based on their decedents called Mary's Igloo.

When I found that, I gave up trying to classify people according to specific groups. I will agree that there are clusters of common genetic traits but except for seriously isolated groups any attempt at classification is doomed to love.

There is evidence that the rate of the fixation of mutations in the human population (ie rate of genetic change) has markedly increased since the Neolithic. In a larger population, more favorable mutations will be available to out compete the marginal mutations and become a part of the population.

A good example of this is anti-malarial mutations, most of which are (a) old and (b) not too good (lots of bad side effects). Hemoglobin S (sickle cell) and C (thalasemia) work by the half-serving (if you are half Hgb S and half normal Hgb, you are in good shape). If you have all-normal Hgb, then you die of malaria; if you have all-HgbS then you die of anemia. Duffy negative people, on the other hand, have no genetic downside...they are just immune to malaria (except maybe P vivax). So the Hemoglobin variants are being selected for-and-against simultaneously, but the Duffy variant is just being selected 'for'. If you lived in a small village in Greece, and all you had genetically available was the HgbC, then that would be better than nothing, but if you live in a large city, your best genetic choice is Duffy.

I disagree with Wm on the matter of race, though. I think that there are races, but that the answer for many people is, "My race is 'blur'." There are still many races on Earth, and just because Barack Obama is mixed race does not mean that the typical Sami or pygmy is. What we lack is the intellectual integrity to separate genuine races from non-races.

Jan

I would argue that there is no such thing as race. We spend a lot of time talking about it, our society frequently makes decisions upon race as do many governments, so it certainly seems as if it exists.

I used to think it did. I was uncomfortable adding a 'race' field to our laboratory software but under pressure from a number of places, most notably Malaysia, I decided I wanted to add a standard table. That's when I ran into my first problem. Their table of races is entirely different than ours. Ours comes from the Office of management and budget and includes Hispanic, which no one thinks is a race. My search for some internationally agreed upon table failed. We don't agree on what races exist.

So picking a table at random, say our OMB one, what race is an individual? What race is Barack Obama? There is no reliable way of determining what race someone is and they fall back on "self declared" -- and we have Elizabeth Warren self declaring as American Indian and Barack Obama as black.

Now there are medical differences between 'races' whatever they are, we have different calculations for eGFR on white and African Americans, even those who don't live in America I guess. But we are simply using these vague terms to determine the existence of the underlying allels that are present. So, which table IS appropriate for Barack Obama?

Everyone knows that there are races, they just have different ones in mind. Race is a political construct as a gross approximation of genetic composition -- and with travel and intermarriage becoming more meaningless all the time.