Genetic Differences In Humans
Sir Frederick
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
June 7, 2009
New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among
continents, the expansions and contractions of populations, and the vagaries of genetic chance � have heavily influenced the distribution of genetic variations in populations
around the world.
The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the
open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
In recent years, geneticists have identified a handful of genes that have helped human populations adapt to new environments within just a few thousand years�a strikingly short
timescale in evolutionary terms. However, the team found that for most genes, it can take at least 50,000-100,000 years for natural selection to spread favorable traits through a
human population. According to their analysis, gene variants tend to be distributed throughout the world in patterns that reflect ancient population movements and other aspects of
population history.
"We don't think that selection has been strong enough to completely fine-tune the adaptation of individual human populations to their local environments," says co-author Jonathan
Pritchard. "In addition to selection, demographic history -- how populations have moved around -- has exerted a strong effect on the distribution of variants."
To determine whether the frequency of a particular variant resulted from natural selection, Pritchard and his colleagues compared the distribution of variants in parts of the
genome that affect the structure and regulation of proteins to the distribution of variants in parts of the genome that do not affect proteins. Since these neutral parts of the
genome are less likely to be affected by natural selection, they reasoned that studying variants in these regions should reflect the demographic history of populations.
The researchers found that many previously identified genetic signals of selection may have been created by historical and demographic factors rather than by selection. When the
team compared closely related populations they found few large genetic differences. If the individual populations' environments were exerting strong selective pressure, such
differences should have been apparent.
Selection may still be occurring in many regions of the genome, says Pritchard. But if so, it is exerting a moderate effect on many genes that together influence a biological
characteristic. "We don't know enough yet about the genetics of most human traits to be able to pick out all of the relevant variation," says Pritchard. "As functional studies go
forward, people will start figuring out the phenotypes that are associated with selective signals," says lead author Graham Coop. "That will be very important, because then we can
figure out what selection pressures underlie these episodes of natural selection."
But even with further research, much will remain unknown about the processes that have resulted in human traits. In particular, Pritchard and Coop urge great caution in trying to
link selection with complex characteristics like intelligence. "We're in the infancy of trying to understand what signals of selection are telling us," says Coop, "so it's a very
long jump to attribute cultural features and group characteristics to selection."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal reference:
1.Coop G, Pickrell JK, Novembre J, Kudaravalli S, Li J, et al. The Role of Geography in Human Adaptation. PLoS Genetics, 2009; 5 (6): e1000500 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500
Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
--
F M McNeill
858 206-3517
California, USA
Email :
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
or if that doesn't work :
fmmc...@cox.net
***********************************************
"Politicians should be limited to two terms,first term
in office, second term in jail."- Anonymous
"Well, maybe they think Americans are a bunch of idiots."
MSNBC host Contessa Brewer on why Republicans call Obama's
policies 'socialist'.
*******************************************************
Giga
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:uohr2511jf7emt295...@4ax.com...
> Is this politically correct or what?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
>
> Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
>
> June 7, 2009
>
> New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome
> much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements
> of humans within and among
> continents, the expansions and contractions of populations, and the
> vagaries of genetic chance - have heavily influenced the distribution of
> genetic variations in populations
> around the world.
>
> The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
> the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford
> University, is published June 5 in the
> open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
>
> In recent years, geneticists have identified a handful of genes that have
> helped human populations adapt to new environments within just a few
> thousand years-a strikingly short
N
physical likeness perhaps or physical preference of characteristics?
where I live blue eyes are a preference, really ! its more a promo
bias, to do with aesthetics as they won't have any more kids than the
UK average ..which is about 2.4. and it would be very wrong indeed to
assume that persons with blue eyes or green perhaps, have a genetic
component for certain type of religious bent. There is also a bias in
arranged marriages too ! wealthy men ar'nt more attractive or weaker
than other men..but there are many more women who want to become
associated to or by such people. The slowest changes in the genetic
pops I'd guess... are where all people work together and live in some
form of mutual and charitable community, where individuals are cared
for by one another, very little is wasted and no one is seen to be
doing without. Essentially the biggest diffence is the number of
children who inherited the genes...less and less to do with the
marriage of ones choice and with whom or why a woman concieved.
Some years ago there was a big investigation into the breeding of a
race horse. There was some scandal about drugging these fabulous
beasts to make them win at the race course. These horses had been bred
very specially over the years, and all had lineages going way, way
back. A lot of effort was made to see that they were kept well,
exercised and fed correctly, the very best results were essential,
there was a lot of money to be made and each 'parent' going back had
been a winner itself !
Someone decided to check the race data from 150 years previously..and
discovered that these new inbred but super hybreed wasn't any
faster... and after the data was analysed they were getting
slower..quite conspicuously from the 'naturally' selected great-great-
great grandparent winners. Very beautiful but also very unexpected or
disappointing if you wanted a 'cash cow'
Speaking of cows...certain genetic types as breeds, of domestic
animals have been tampered with to such an extent that the females
would die in birth if they ar'nt specially matched, and cheetahs are
known to be on the extinction list because there are so few
differences between their genes. Wern't they at some point bred as
hunting or racing animals?
So the right to decide is very very important, 'natural selection'
where she makes a choice of husband or what man she feels she can give
birth to or if she can support the child if he is'nt there. When
people make their choice of bonding partner, will they choose looks or
religion? Certain physical types are more attractive than others for
me, although I wouldn't necessarily choose the physically most
agreeable to be a parent to my offspring or as a long term romance,
because physical appearances are like money is, we find it attractive,
we find it important and we like to use it...but it isnt love.
Would natural selection work over the internet? nope.
ZerkonXXXX
> natural selection
Since 'selection' is repeated over and over again in this article ....
What does this word imply exactly? 'From any given group of people, which
is called here genome structure, some are naturally selected (by...?)
while others are not' seems like a good start.
It seems logical to assume that whatever is present or exists is the
result of a past selection, so everything has already been selected. Each
birth would be a self-evident selection.
> In addition to selection, demographic history -- how populations have
> moved around -- has exerted a strong effect on the distribution of
> variants."
The word 'duh' comes to mind here. Why this is 'in addition to' I can not
understand. Just as I do not understand how 'demographic history' can be
set apart from anything. What I do understand is they are regarding
genetics as being self contained and not completely relative to the
process of the whole being of the human, which makes much more sense.
Thankfully, this team of researchers did not write in (select) money for
a nutritionist, this might have been yet another 'in addition to'.
tooly
> -------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
>
> Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
>
> June 7, 2009
>
> New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome
> much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements
> of humans within and among
> continents, the expansions and contractions of populations, and the
> around the world.
>
> The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
> the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford
> University, is published June 5 in the
> open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
>
> In recent years, geneticists have identified a handful of genes that have
> helped human populations adapt to new environments within just a few
Hmm...but what of epigenetics? So I don't have to worry about my grandpap's
grandpap disqualifying me for a job then?
I remember one of the more interesting aspects of education was it's impact
on productivity..."across generations that was geometric in scope"
[explaining much of the economic gap between industrialized and emerging
nations]. This implies something going on that is becoming hardwired in a
very short time IMHO. If it was just about transfer of information, one
would expect a more linear relationship. IN other words, you can't just
teach a man to fish and think the third world will catch up overnight for
this. It is not all just about information, but how information is
transforming us.
tgde...@earthlink.net
> Is this politically correct or what?
How is this either politically correct or not politically correct? And
are you talking about RWPC or LWPC?
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, unless you are a dittohead.
-tg
> -------------------------------------------------------http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
> or if that doesn't work :
chazworth
evolutionary studies concerned with surival of the fittest and the
selection of genes by nature.
Nature does not select genes. There is no mechanism by which nature
says "oh that is s good gene, I think we'll keep that one". Thus we
are NOT a collection of genes which have been found to be the fittest
of the fit, nor even a collection of fit genes.
Nature does not work that way, the process is retro. We are all a
collection of genes which have not compromised our abilities to
produce viable offspring. We have a various collection of genes that
are harmless to our survival, with a few that can can do harm to our
life.
Nature does not work positively to choose the best, it works
negatively to remove genes that will do harm by killing particular
individual organisms with genes so bad as to make them vulnerable. It
does this in a non directed and haphazard way. Sometimes even the
strongest lion or tiger with no know predator can accidentally break a
leg and die from gangreen.
We are all a collection of survival neutral traits, 99% of which will
confer no particular advantage one way or another.
A case in point. Take ginger hair. Nature did not positively select
this colour so that people in northern climes could get enough VitD,
becasue dark haired people don't actually have the slightest problem
with this. The point is that nature allows variation, and since ginger
hair is not a problem in the north as it would be in , say, north
africa, it can thrive in the north eventhough it confers no advantage
whatsoever.
Take sickle cell, often described as nature's defence from malaria, is
found to be more prevalent in areas with a high mortality from
malaria. It's not that nature has chosen it so that we can defend
oursleves against mosquitos, its jsut that those with sickle-cells
tend to have a higher reprresentation in the population to those that
do not.
On Jun 9, 3:29 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> Is this politically correct or what?
> -------------------------------------------------------http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
> or if that doesn't work :
Sir Frederick
>On Jun 8, 10:29�pm, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>> Is this politically correct or what?
>
>How is this either politically correct or not politically correct? And
>are you talking about RWPC or LWPC?
>
>Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, unless you are a dittohead.
>
>-tg
>
>
>
>
If I say anything I will be politically incorrect. Thus I can't
let you know!
tgde...@earthlink.net
You will be either RWPC, LWPC, or neutral. Are you ashamed of being
any of those?
-tg
Sir Frederick
Not ashamed, unless I let you know.
Are you trying to make me ashamed of not letting you know?
Last time I was really ashamed was when I mistook a fire alarm
with low battery, for a frog. I felt both ashamed and lonely.
John Jones
> Is this politically correct or what?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
>
> Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
>
> June 7, 2009
>
> New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among
> around the world.
>
> The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the
> open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
>
> timescale in evolutionary terms. However, the team found that for most genes, it can take at least 50,000-100,000 years for natural selection to spread favorable traits through a
> human population. According to their analysis, gene variants tend to be distributed throughout the world in patterns that reflect ancient population movements and other aspects of
> population history.
>
> "We don't think that selection has been strong enough to completely fine-tune the adaptation of individual human populations to their local environments," says co-author Jonathan
> Pritchard. "In addition to selection, demographic history -- how populations have moved around -- has exerted a strong effect on the distribution of variants."
>
> To determine whether the frequency of a particular variant resulted from natural selection, Pritchard and his colleagues compared the distribution of variants in parts of the
> genome that affect the structure and regulation of proteins to the distribution of variants in parts of the genome that do not affect proteins. Since these neutral parts of the
> genome are less likely to be affected by natural selection, they reasoned that studying variants in these regions should reflect the demographic history of populations.
>
> The researchers found that many previously identified genetic signals of selection may have been created by historical and demographic factors rather than by selection. When the
> team compared closely related populations they found few large genetic differences. If the individual populations' environments were exerting strong selective pressure, such
> differences should have been apparent.
>
> Selection may still be occurring in many regions of the genome, says Pritchard. But if so, it is exerting a moderate effect on many genes that together influence a biological
> characteristic. "We don't know enough yet about the genetics of most human traits to be able to pick out all of the relevant variation," says Pritchard. "As functional studies go
> forward, people will start figuring out the phenotypes that are associated with selective signals," says lead author Graham Coop. "That will be very important, because then we can
> figure out what selection pressures underlie these episodes of natural selection."
>
> But even with further research, much will remain unknown about the processes that have resulted in human traits. In particular, Pritchard and Coop urge great caution in trying to
> link selection with complex characteristics like intelligence. "We're in the infancy of trying to understand what signals of selection are telling us," says Coop, "so it's a very
> long jump to attribute cultural features and group characteristics to selection."
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Journal reference:
>
> 1.Coop G, Pickrell JK, Novembre J, Kudaravalli S, Li J, et al. The Role of Geography in Human Adaptation. PLoS Genetics, 2009; 5 (6): e1000500 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500
> Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
>
>
A "genetic difference" is like the difference between blue and yellow.
The difference is blue and yellow.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Why, did you try to kiss the fire alarm?
-tg
Sir Frederick
No, but leave it to you to think of that!
I got used to the idea of a little frog companion,
then it turned into a machine.
tgde...@earthlink.net
> Sir Frederick wrote:
> > Is this politically correct or what?
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
>
> > Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
>
> > June 7, 2009
>
> > New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among
> > around the world.
>
> > The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the
> > open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
>
> > timescale in evolutionary terms. However, the team found that for most genes, it can take at least 50,000-100,000 years for natural selection to spread favorable traits through a
> > human population. According to their analysis, gene variants tend to be distributed throughout the world in patterns that reflect ancient population movements and other aspects of
> > population history.
>
> > "We don't think that selection has been strong enough to completely fine-tune the adaptation of individual human populations to their local environments," says co-author Jonathan
> > Pritchard. "In addition to selection, demographic history -- how populations have moved around -- has exerted a strong effect on the distribution of variants."
>
> > To determine whether the frequency of a particular variant resulted from natural selection, Pritchard and his colleagues compared the distribution of variants in parts of the
> > genome that affect the structure and regulation of proteins to the distribution of variants in parts of the genome that do not affect proteins. Since these neutral parts of the
> > genome are less likely to be affected by natural selection, they reasoned that studying variants in these regions should reflect the demographic history of populations.
>
> > The researchers found that many previously identified genetic signals of selection may have been created by historical and demographic factors rather than by selection. When the
> > team compared closely related populations they found few large genetic differences. If the individual populations' environments were exerting strong selective pressure, such
> > differences should have been apparent.
>
> > Selection may still be occurring in many regions of the genome, says Pritchard. But if so, it is exerting a moderate effect on many genes that together influence a biological
> > characteristic. "We don't know enough yet about the genetics of most human traits to be able to pick out all of the relevant variation," says Pritchard. "As functional studies go
> > forward, people will start figuring out the phenotypes that are associated with selective signals," says lead author Graham Coop. "That will be very important, because then we can
> > figure out what selection pressures underlie these episodes of natural selection."
>
> > But even with further research, much will remain unknown about the processes that have resulted in human traits. In particular, Pritchard and Coop urge great caution in trying to
> > link selection with complex characteristics like intelligence. "We're in the infancy of trying to understand what signals of selection are telling us," says Coop, "so it's a very
> > long jump to attribute cultural features and group characteristics to selection."
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
>
> > Journal reference:
>
> > 1.Coop G, Pickrell JK, Novembre J, Kudaravalli S, Li J, et al. The Role of Geography in Human Adaptation. PLoS Genetics, 2009; 5 (6): e1000500 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500
> > Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
>
> A "genetic difference" is like the difference between blue and yellow.
> The difference is blue and yellow.
I have a tube of blue paint and a tube of yellow point. I guess
cadmium and cobalt are genetically different.....
-tg
John Jones
> On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Sir Frederick wrote:
>>> Is this politically correct or what?
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
>>> Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
>>> June 7, 2009
>>> New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among
>>> around the world.
>>> The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the
>>> open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
That's a chemical difference. The colour difference is blue and yellow.
tgde...@earthlink.net
> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Sir Frederick wrote:
> >>> Is this politically correct or what?
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
> >>> Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
> >>> June 7, 2009
> >>> New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among
> >>> around the world.
> >>> The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the
> >>> open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
But all I know is that there is a color difference. How can I know
that there is a so-called 'chemical difference'?
-tg
John Jones
> On Jun 9, 1:54 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
>> tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Sir Frederick wrote:
>>>>> Is this politically correct or what?
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605091157.htm
>>>>> Geography And History Shape Genetic Differences In Humans
>>>>> June 7, 2009
>>>>> New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among
>>>>> around the world.
>>>>> The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the
>>>>> open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
You don't need to know. See new post.
John Stafford
"John Jones" <jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
opulations.
> A "genetic difference" is like the difference between blue and yellow.
> The difference is blue and yellow.
Additive or subtractive? And in what color space?
John Stafford
On 6/9/09 12:54 PM, in article h0m7l4$opk$6...@news.eternal-september.org,
"John Jones" <jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I have a tube of blue paint and a tube of yellow point. I guess
>> cadmium and cobalt are genetically different.....
>>
>> -tg
>>
>
> That's a chemical difference. The colour difference is blue and yellow.
What about magenta? Is it a color, JJ?
Can you tell violet from purple?
John Jones
what ar e you talki ng ab ou t
John Jones
We can't employ addition and subtraction for this meaning of difference.
John Stafford
"John Jones" <jonesc...@aol.com> wrote:
What is the difference between the meanings of difference?
Yer head's gonna explode, JJ!