Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Y Chromosome and Personal Genetic Archaeology

By Baldrson in Technology
Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:38:40 AM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

It cost me less than $300 to discover the geographic distribution my patrilineal kin in Europe. I obtained all this personal genetic archaeological information by swabbing the inside of my mouth for a sample of my DNA, sending it to Oxford with a check, waiting for 3 months for my Y chromosome "haplotype" results, and then submitting a query form on a haplogroup database web page after filling in 5 blanks with the test results.


Strange things emerged like an intense cluster in a little Hanseatic city in the area of northern Holland -- the homeland of the ancient tribe that became the Franks. Radiating out from Groningen I found an exponentially lowering concentration except for other Hanseatic areas and in northern Norway. Curiously, there was also an isolated cluster way off in the east Austrian city of Graz -- the site of a major defensive struggle against the Turks. I had only one fraternal relative in Asia: A Syrian.

My interest in Y chromosome testing goes back a way. I invested in a study of the feasibility of doing a mail-order DNA test, very much like the one Oxford Ancestors is doing, back in the late 1980s, because I thought it was a really good idea for people to know their genetic makeup, and that people would pay for the information. The study (which cost me all of $1000 paid to an unemployed Princeton PhD) came back with the conclusion that it would take about 10 years for the technologies (primarily development of restriction enzymes for Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR technology) to become economic.

Years passed...

By the time the appropriate "restriction enzymes", described as necessary by my consultant, were developed, I had become involved in other pursuits. I was therefore quite happy, and a little frustrated at my own limitations, to discover Professor Brian Sykes of Oxford University started the business I long thought was such a great idea. (My interest in tribal identity as a substitute for religion and politics, combined with my prior business research, is the sum total of my conscious interest in discussing the importance of what Brian Sykes et al are doing in mass market DNA typing. As for my unconscious interests, that's what this intended to expose -- at least the ones rendered unconscious due to their genetic basis -- so read further to discover my own discoveries about those.)

Although Sykes announced Oxford Ancestors' Y-Line service immediately, it did not actually become available until some time later. I had decided that disclosure of one's genetic heritage was necessary to avoid conflicts of interest in any milieu where genetic interests might play a part -- which means in virtually all circumstances -- and I therefore decided to disclose what DNA data on myself that I could affordably acquire -- starting with my Y chromosome and the matrilineal mtDNA fingerprinting offered by Oxford Ancestors, or companies like it.

I'll admit to a bit of procrastination here, but I did finally get around to it.

I sent an email to Oxford Ancestors requesting a testing kit and received it within a week. After a little more procrastination, I opened it to find a small plastic package surrounding something that looked like a Q-tip, but with a helix of short, soft plastic bristles radiating around one end. As per directions, I rinsed my mouth thoroughly, and, with some directed lighting in front of a mirror with my mouth gapping as wide as I could sustain, swabbed the inside of my cheek repeatedly being careful to avoid contact with my teeth. I then withdrew the swab and reinserted it into the plastic package, taped the end closed, filled out a brief questionnaire form and finally, toward the end of November, sent in the package in with a check for just under $400 which would pay for both patrilineal and matrilineal DNA fingerprinting. (They've since lowered their prices due to the intense competition that has entered the field.)

Then I waited...

I still have the envelopes they sent with my results. One of them, the one with my matrilineal results was postmarked 22.01.22 which is European for January 22, 2002. The other, the one with my patrilineal results was postmarked 15.02.02 or February 15, 2002.

My matriline:

ATTCTAATTT AAACTATTCT CTGTTCTTTC ATGGGGAAGC AGATTTGGGT ACCACCCAAG TATTGACTCA CCCATCAACA ACCGCTATGT ATTTCGTACA
TTACTGCCAG CCACCATGAA TATTGTACGG TACCATAAAT ACTTGACCAC CTGTAGTACA TAAAAACCCA ATCCACATCA AAACCCCCTC CCCATGCTTA
CAAGCAAGTA CAGCAATCAA CCCTCAACTA TCACACATCA ACTGCAACTC CAAAGCCACC CCTCACCCAC TAGGATACCA ACAAACCTAC CCACCCTTAA
CAGTACATAG TACATAAAGC CATTTACCGT ACATAGCACA TTACAGTCAA ATCCCTTCTC GTCCCCATGG ATGACCCCCC TCAGATAGGG GTCCCTTGAC

Places me in right in the center of what Sykes calls "Helena" -- the most widespread of European matrilines.

My patriline was a bit more informative despite containing fewer letters:

14 14 22 10 11 13 09 16 12 11

That's the Oxford Ancestors Digital Y-Line Code for my patriline. To interpret it, they sent me a haplotype chart signed by Brian Sykes certifying the laboratory results. On the color coded chart, I was able to match these numbers with a number of sites on the Y chromosome -- my haplotypes.

Unfortunately, Oxford Ancestors sent very little in the way of information with which I could interpret this gibberish. So off to Google I went looking for information.

Fortunately, I came upon an amazingly informative web page at Rootsweb that did a comparison of the competitors in the rapidly growing field of Y chromosome haplotyping services. It was a gold-mine of information and gave me a mild case of buyer's remorse due to the fact that I found more recently emerging competitors, such as Relative Genetics were claiming to offer more haplotype information at a lower price.

This is even more interesting given that just a few years ago, a colleague of mine who had heard me discussing the importance of genetic fingerprinting to genealogical researchers had asked some genealogy experts about the potential for this technology and received the standard "genes don't matter in genealogy" (as elsewhere) response that is de rigeur for all who want to maintain social respectability midst current theocratic beliefs about genes and all they supposedly do not, under any circumstances, mean.

Most importantly, there, along with price/performance comparisons of various competitors I found links to a way to interpret my results: Three geographic haplotype databases, one for each of Europe, Asia and North America. The author of that page said it best so I'll just quote directly here:

There are three that cover the geographical areas of North America, Europe and Asia run by Drs Lutz Roewer and Sascha Willuweit of the Institute of Legal Medicine, Humboldt University, Berlin. These are in their infancy but the numbers of results they contain are growing over time. Some testing companies offer to link testees to other people who've tested with them that have the same haplotype, but this be of only limited usefulness until many, many more men have tested.

Since I am one of those rootless Americans, the North American database held little interest for me -- particularly given that the rarity of my surname makes it relatively easy for anyone to discover that my patriline is one of those early American Scotch-Irish families that arrived on these shores and submerged in the foliage of the Smokey Mountains not to be seen by civilization again until early in the 20th century.

Hence to the European haplotype map I went to enter my haplotypes.

Clicking the "Start Search" link, the form was somewhat intimidating at first encounter, but I forged ahead discovering to my relief that the very first item in the form matched exactly my haplotype certificate information. So I entered DSY19=14 there. The next item on the form didn't match the order of haplotypes given on my certificate, but looking down the certification page I saw a match, and clicked on DYS389I to enter 09. When I did so I got some obscure warning about "nomenclature changed" which didn't stop me from entering DYS389i=09. The form item DYS389II next didn't match any of my certified haplotype labels, but it was close to DYS389II-I so I tried to enter DSY389II=16. However, there was no 16 offered as an option for that field, so I left it as "*" and moved on: DSY390=22, DSY391=10, DSY392=11 and DSY393=13. That's when I ran out of certified haplotypes that matched the search fields. So I left the rest as "*" and clicked on "Search"!

Then, disappointment came back in the response:

Haplotype query summary(Observed frequency)

No matches found, based on a European population sample of 8766 minimal haplotypes.

Frustrated, I remembered the one field I had filled in that seemed questionable due to "nomenclature changed". I searched around a bit for what that might mean, but when I didn't get any definitive answers within a half hour, I just decided to eliminate the questionable haplotype by entering DYS389i=* and reruning the query.

That's when a bunch of confusing information returned to my browser making me a bit disappointed that I would have to do a lot of work to ferret out the exact geographic distribution. However, scrolling further down the page, I saw the following table, and knew I had hit paydirt!

Population query summary

Albania 0 of 72
Asturias 0 of 90
Barcelona 2 of 224
Belgium 4 of 97
Berlin 15 of 428
Bern 4 of 91
Budapest 5 of 117
Buenos Aires 0 of 100
Bydgoszcz 1 of 168
Cantabria 2 of 101
CentralPortugal 3 of 185
Cologne 5 of 135
Düsseldorf 13 of 150
Emilia-Romagna 0 of 99
Estonia 9 of 133
Freiburg 12 of 252
Friesland 4 of 44
Galicia 1 of 103
Granada 0 of 52
Graz 6 of 65
Groningen 7 of 48
Hamburg 4 of 114
Holland 8 of 87
Innsbruck 3 of 135
Latium 3 of 222
Latvia 0 of 145
Lausanne 2 of 108
Leipzig 22 of 490
Liguria 0 of 81
Limburg 5 of 50
Lithuania 1 of 151
Ljubljana 6 of 121
Lombardy 1 of 182
London 13 of 247
Magdeburg 14 of 177
Mainz 6 of 104
Marche 1 of 86
Medellin 4 of 225
Moscou 1 of 85
Munich 13 of 251
Münster 2 of 58
NorthernPoland 2 of 150
NorthernPortugal 3 of 182
Norway Central 2 of 48
Norway East 7 of 85
Norway North 4 of 45
Norway Oslo 0 of 33
Norway South 1 of 25
Norway West 1 of 64
Pomerania 6 of 67
Puglia 0 of 70
Rostock 8 of 203
Sicily 1 of 199
SouthernIreland 1 of 107
SouthernPortugal 1 of 112
Strasbourg 0 of 99
Stuttgart 12 of 155
Sweden 29 of 350
Tuscany 2 of 218
Umbria 1 of 51
Veneto 0 of 120
Vienna 0 of 66
Warsaw 2 of 157
Wroclaw 2 of 121
Zaragoza 3 of 120
Zeeland 2 of 46

WHEW!

I verified the "nomenclature changed" field I left out was, indeed, pathological by removing, one at a time, each of the other fields while leaving the rest, including the "nomenclature changed" field as specified on my certificate -- getting zero results with each. I can go ahead and remain skeptical about the results of the search due to this difficulty, but since there were other missing data fields it hardly makes sense to discard, as uninformative, the clear geographic structures in the results.

This is still quite a bit to deal with but it is pretty simple to interpret with a little direction.

Basically, all they're saying is that, for example, they had Y chromosome haplotype samples from 46 people in Zeeland and only 2 of those matched all 5 of my search criteria for 4% correlation. However, I matched 7 of 48 people sampled in Groningen for a match frequency of almost 15% which is 50% more than any other locale!

Clearly, Groningen is now on my short list of tourist stops for my next European expedition.

A useful sorting on these items is by calculated percentage. My top correlations sorted out as:

Groningen 7 of 48 = 14.6%
Limburg 5 of 50 =10.0%
Holland 8 of 87 = 9.2%
Graz 6 of 65 = 9.2%
Friesland 4 of 44 = 9.1%
Pomerania 6 of 67 = 9.0%
Norway North 4 of 45 = 8.9%
Düsseldorf 13 of 150 = 8.7%
Sweden 29 of 350 = 8.5%
Norway East 7 of 85 = 8.2%
Magdeburg 14 of 177 =7.9%
Stuttgart 12 of 155 = 7.7%
Estonia 9 of 133 = 6.8%
...
etc.

The map of Europe provided on the same results page is highly valuable as it lets you see exactly where each of these, somewhat obscure, locations is in relation to the others.

What I noticed was an exceedingly high frequency, given its remoteness from other sites with similar correlation, in the east Austrian city of Ganz. What is special about Ganz, I wondered? How is it related to Groningen? So now its off to Google to search for confluence of terms -- and a sentimental journey through correlation spaces.

I'm still wondering about Scotland clans because the European haplotype database doesn't cover Scotland -- only the Continent, London and southern Ireland -- which is particularly frustrating for Americans from early pioneering families who were displaced by the land clearances throughout Scotland and northern Ireland from Elizabethan times through the 19th century.

There are probably a few political bombshells hidden in that data, and that may be the reason the specifically Scotch-Irish data is being withheld. Much of the land in Britain is controlled by members of the nobility that have title to land by virtue of claims of ancestry that can be traced back hundreds of years. There is even a position in the British Government, Lord Lyon, that is supposed to keep track of genealogies for this reason. It was no accident that when Cromwell seized power in Britain, he systematically destroyed genealogical records -- particularly in Scotland.

The series of events that lead to the mass migration of British populations to North America(There are now more Scots in North America than in Scotland) and caused the installation of Germans on the British throne, are rather murky. This kind of technology has the potential to undercover the what really happened here.

The political hot spots aren't limited to Britain by any means. There is a large class in the Arab world that claim descent from the Prophet Mohammed. Odds are many of them are not and there will be considerable conflict as these people start comparing genetic data. Also, in Japan, it has been found that the upper aristocracy consists of relative newcomers to the Japanese Islands compared to the Ainu and possibly the Samuri families.

The Japanese and Arabs will, of course, handle their problems with this technology in their own ways, but being of Scotch Irish ancestry on both sides of my family, I really wish the folks in the UK who have this data would just release what data they have. Northern Ireland and Scotland are the only major population of British descent whose data are not released. It seems rather unethical to deprive one population -- particularly a population that has declined by millions during the 20th century -- of information that may help it better cope with the modern world's enduring impact on its fertility rates as they are cleared from their family farm lands once again and given work in the cities.

I happen to be among those of Scotch-Irish identity who may be exposed as not of Scotch-Irish ancestry -- but rather Dutch or ? ancestry. Shedding such light on a subject of murky depths is ultimately of benefit to all concerned. Much as I like the movie "Braveheart" and appreciate Scottish culture -- I'll be happy to go trade-in my great kilt if I find myself rejected by my purported clan. I'll get used to the wooden shoes, windmills, tulips and dikes if I have to.

(Stepping down off my Scotch-Irish soapbox.)

I can heartily recommend this exercise for others and even advocate it as a primary ethical responsibility as well as important information for yourself in an age when global transport is bringing us into contact with those with whom we have little history.

Your own personal archaeological discoveries are waiting within your nuclear DNA with a little money, a few months waiting time and help from information and bio technology.

Get started as soon as you can! It's something everyone should do!

An addendum to the story relating one of those "dream signs" you're supposed to look for to become lucid during your dreams -- but in this case it turns out not to have reality as we know it:

It started on April 2, 2000 with an April Fools joke someone had posted to the Usenet newsgroup alt.scottish.clans in which I mentioned the surprises that would be uncoiled by Y chromosome haplotype analysis, should it become available on the mass market. Quite rapidly the joke took a decidedly dishonorable turn, as unmoderated Usenet "discussions" regarding human genetics are guaranteed to do, prompting me to bring up the merits of single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. At last I issued A Challenge to Y Chromosome Fair Contest in which the disputants would decide the legitimacy of their claims to their pretended Scottish clan identity. Then, as I pointed out in this post:

April 1, I respond to Sean Uisdin's April Fools joke warning Sean Uisdin that Y chromosome exposure of pretenders is coming and ask him if he ever heard of Brian Sykes.

April 2, I challenge Sean Uisdin to a Y chromosome test of our respective claims to clan surnames MacGregor and Houston, mediated by Brian Sykes.

April 4, ABC News reports a highly successful Y chromosome validation of surname conducted by Brian Sykes on his own surname.

Did you get that? Mysteriously, on the day after my challenge was distributed around the globe via Usenet, major wire services carried stories reporting that Brian Sykes had conducted the first surname survey based on Y chromosome markers using on his own surname. Even more remarkable is that the day after that Oxford Ancestors, Ltd. opened for business providing Y chromosome analysis to the public -- under the direction of Brian Sykes!

Despite my mentions of Sykes in the context of Y chromosome testing, I brought him up because, a year previously, I read an article that Sykes had been, like many scientists, doing mtDNA typing of ancient skeletons. Other than that I had no idea Sykes was doing a surname correlation with Y chromosome markers, let alone going to, within 2 days of my suggesting that he be hired (for thousands of dollars) to settle a dispute via Y chromosome testing, publicize an offer of such an unprecedented mass-market service to the public for only a few hundred dollars -- as the high fees I presumed in my challenge to Y chromosome fair contest indicate. I bother with this rather long digression in part because genealogical researchers encounter weird coincidences like this so often that they don't even consider them worth commenting on anymore -- which makes me wonder if Karl Jung may have been, in some profound sense, right about genes and archetypes -- that there is something other than mechanism involved in genetic evolution. There is corroborating data in the bizarre coincidences involving reunification of twins who had been separated at birth -- but we'll save that difficult subject for another discussion.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Inexpensive DNA analysis for the masses is:
o An important part of exposing genetic interests an increasingly mobile world. 22%
o Fantastic! I'd love to find out all I can about all my lineages! 37%
o "A gift for the man who has everything." The novelty value is the main attraction. 12%
o Not really something I'm much interested in one way or the other. 10%
o Of little more import than the annoyance it creates when paternities aren't as expected. 8%
o Too prone to abuse . Disallow public access without a prescription. 4%
o Out of control already due to mail-order services. The damage will be great but not worth international police actions. 0%
o Something that should be hunted down and prevented world-wide lest it lead to genocides world-wide. 4%

Votes: 48
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Google
o Oxford
o a query form on a haplogroup database web page
o Hanseatic
o Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR
o Y-Line service
o email to Oxford Ancestors requesting a testing kit
o matrilinea l results
o patrilinea l results
o an amazingly informative web page at Rootsweb
o Relative Genetics
o North America
o Europe
o Asia
o European haplotype map I went
o lucid during your dreams
o an April Fools joke someone had posted to the Usenet newsgroup alt.scottish.clans in which I mentioned the surprises that would be uncoiled by Y chromosome haplotype analysis, should it become available on the mass market
o bring up the merits of single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing
o A Challenge to Y Chromosome Fair Contest
o this post
o on the day after my challenge was distributed around the globe via Usenet, major wire services carried stories reporting that Brian Sykes had conducted the first surname survey based on Y chromosome markers using on his own surname
o Oxford Ancestors, Ltd. opened for business providing Y chromosome analysis to the public -- under the direction of Brian Sykes
o Karl Jung may have been, in some profound sense, right about genes and archetypes -- that there is something other than mechanism involved in genetic evolution
o bizarre coincidences involving reunification of twins who had been separated at birth
o Also by Baldrson


Display: Sort:
The Y Chromosome and Personal Genetic Archaeology | 143 comments (125 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
Nazi. (2.05 / 40) (#3)
by elenchos on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 07:53:12 PM EST

(nt)

Adequacy.org,

Damn (3.54 / 11) (#5)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:01:21 PM EST

Elenchos, I am an admirer of your work. You've contributed a lot to the community here, and you should be proud of your accomplishments.

Now, though, you've crossed the line. There is nothing in Baldrson's thoughtful, provocative article to suggest that he is a "Nazi." He explores, in a highly detailed, scientific way, his genetic origins and comes to some surprising conclusions.

Many of us automatically equate eugenics with Nazism (even the notable Harvard eugenicist Richard Lewontin has been guilty of this), but I think a historical review will show that eugenics programs were widespread in Western Europe and North America until after the Second War. Well-meaning attempts to limit the harmful effects of overdiverisification were conflated with Nazi racial extermination programs. This is not fair. Serious scientific research into eugenics is to this day impaired by the mistaken legacy of the Nazi comparison. Look at the careers of J. Phillipe Rushton and Kevin MacDonald, for example. Even Charles Murray, a liberatarian, has been accused of "nazism" by his liberalist critics.

I invite you to consider Baldrson's GOD hypothesis at your nearest convenience. I don't expect you to publically withdraw your comment, but I suspect that your mind will be broadened just a tad. And the same goes for any nay-sayers here.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

The harmful effects of overdiverisification? (none / 0) (#54)
by synaesthesia on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 10:14:44 AM EST

the harmful effects of overdiverisification

Could you please elaborate?



Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
overdiversification (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by nodsmasher on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:12:13 PM EST

i think (but im not sure) hes saying that people wanted to cut back on the efects of races mingling and creat the "pure races" of old
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
on eugenics (none / 0) (#58)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:06:44 PM EST

this is from my Prof's online notes. by prof i actually mean proffessor not just teacher, he's got a PhD and more so take his word for it.

the slides referred to in the following can be found here.

http://ww2.mcgill.ca/Biology/undergra/c202b/02b/lect22/lect022/sld027.htm

http://ww2.mcgill.ca/Biology/undergra/c202b/02b/lect22/lect022/sld028.htm

to quote
"This is an extremely important aspect of quantitative genetics that hits at the heart of some very current debates about nature and nurture.

Particularly one misunderstood point that raises its ugly head over and over again in the media and elsewhere--the notion that intelligence, as measured by IQ, is heritable and thus humans are biologically determined and may as well own up to the consequences of this, which usually follow (according to these people) as abandoning attempts to upgrade educational programs for disadvantaged children, under the philosophy that such programs are doomed to failure because of the genetic "heritable" nature of intelligence. The idea is usually tied to racial differences in IQ by these same persons.
Most recently, this idea has been promoted in the book "The Bell Curve", by the Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein, but other recent promoters of the idea include the Canadian professor Phillip Rushton, and the inventor of the transistor Wm. Shockley.
There have been many attempts to debunk this fallacy, led notably by the population geneticist Richard Lewontin, and early by Ashley Montagu."
continued....
"What's wrong with the arguments of Hernstein, Rushton, and Shockley? Let's just focus on their poor understanding of quantitative genetics, and think about GxE and the norm of reaction.

All of them are treating heritability of IQ as some sort of characteristic of human populations that is unchangeable by the environment. Thus, they are attempting to make broad and unfounded statements about how IQ distributions would respond to changes in say, the educational environment.
But we know that, because of G x E, even if we can measure the heritability of IQ in one environment, it does not reveal anything about the phenotype distribution in another environment.
Consider this simple example (slide)..... Note that each genotype responds uniquely to the environment, and that indeed, heritability is very different in the two environments....(it is much higher in environment 1)
In environment 2, because of the individual norms of reaction, there is little difference among the genotypes (little heritability).
Who is to say that if environment 2 represents an environment of high educational resources for all genotypes, that intelligence would not respond in this manner? "



I sincerely hope everyone can appreciate that.


[ Parent ]
I don't think (1.00 / 2) (#63)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:41:59 PM EST

Montague Grammar has anything to do with this.

Many of us have PhDs in "life experience," which I think more than equals the 'expertise' of your eggheaded teacher (Maple League or no).

My own studies in life have convinced me of one thing: smart, successful people have smart, successful children. If this were simply a matter of privilege and environment, then how do you explain that the grandparents of many of these folks were penniless immigrants? They were able to elevate themselves through intrinsic intelligence and hard work, qualities they pass on to their offspring.

Refusing to believe that IQ is heritable (or, more popularly, that intelligence is somehow more "complex" or different than what IQ measures) presents a direct challenge to the system of free-enterprise upon which our country is based. If the primary predictor of success is the environment in which one is raised, then the socialist arguments about wealth distribution are correct. Since these arguments are clearly wrong, it follows that IQ is heritable.

I would also hope, in the future, that you choose not to rely so heavily on the argument from authority fallacy in your postings.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

God, I hate these know-nothings.... (none / 0) (#74)
by inti on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:55:27 PM EST

Look, I imagine that you do something for a living. I imagine that you have some skill that most people do not have. Perhaps you are a programmer. Whatever the case, I imagine that you believe - correctly - that your special knowledge in this area gives you some authority in discussing it.

For some reason, though, people like you think you are authorities in issues like human genetics. You think that your opinion is as informed and valid as that of the "eggheaded" professors. However, these eggheaded professors have devoted their lives to the study of a narrow problem domain. The difference between their knowledge of genetics and your own is very great. Your "PhD in life experience" means precisely squat as far as technical discussion of this topic is concerned.

I can see where this comment came from. It certainly is annoying when people flog non-specialists with credentials. (I have a masters degree - in science!) However, it is a fact that trained geneticists know a hell of a lot more about genetics and heritability than you ever will. If you expect other persons to respect the years of study and experience you have in your own field of expertise, you should accord the same respect to others, and perhaps display a modicum of humility when discussing something you - after all - know nothing about.

Regards,

Matt


Claim your namespace.
Support the OpenNIC

[ Parent ]

ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:20:06 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Look around (none / 0) (#81)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:42:03 PM EST

A bit. The comments to this story, for example.

Nothing is more annoying to me than someone who's arguing what is obviously the correct position, but yet who cannot effectively argue it against even the slightest bit of rhetorical sophistication. Take the other respondent in this thread, e.g. He has persistently made an ass out of himself (and Canadians) by emphatically garbling truisms and flaunting an inferiority complex.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Controversy in this topic (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:32:57 PM EST

Part of the problem is that in this particular area of human genetics, the scientific discussions have gotten quite nasty and political from time to time(I'd look at some of the debates between Prof. Sykes of Oxford and Prof. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford University). It would be one thing if there was a clear consensus being rapidly generated on this topic among the professionals-but that doesn't appear to be the obvious case from the perspective of this amateur observer.



[ Parent ]

Naturally... (none / 0) (#88)
by inti on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:56:13 PM EST

I didn't mean to imply that an informed consensus exists among experts, or that the non-expert should not have an opinion. I of course have my own relatively ill-informed opinions on the matter. I was simply responding to what I took to be an anti-intellectual element in the parent post ("eggheaded professors").

Matt


Claim your namespace.
Support the OpenNIC

[ Parent ]

you're a fool (none / 0) (#80)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:27:46 PM EST

i won't go into the details of why because i think the other guy nailed it on the head.
however i'm interested as to why you believe that a more socialist theory of government is "clearly" inferior. the statements within your arguements are not only juvenile but parsimoniously unfounded in the reality of the matter.

When you live in a country where recieving much needed surgery means becoming endebted for life, i think you lose your right to say who's society is superior. When going to a good school depends not only on one's grades but also have the co-requisite of being rich you have a problem.

Sure i get taxed to hell, but at least i can live a decent life with a little bit of security.

[ Parent ]
Lysenko vs. Eugenics (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 07:04:39 PM EST

There have been rather extreme positions taken on both sides of this debate historically. In Russia, after the revolution, there emerged the idea that ones characteristics were completely determined environmentally while in the US at that time, people were getting forcibly sterilized because of governmental policy.

The first question here: what are the scientific facts where (as opposed to popular theories)? I'd look a bit at the kind of reaction that folks like Prof. Shockley and Rushton have had to their ideas-these reactions were quite strong and have gone beyond simple, scientific debate.

I personally question the degree to which in contemporary academe these questions can be actually explored-the issues are just too politically charged.



[ Parent ]

Why? (1.75 / 4) (#6)
by Tezcatlipoca on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:01:36 PM EST


---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
Y chromosomes (4.50 / 2) (#26)
by ucblockhead on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 10:26:54 PM EST

You might be interested to know that the method described here first hit the newstands when it was used to show that the surname "cohen" was indeed indicitive of decent from the Jewish priest class.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
I think I've been (3.50 / 2) (#32)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:11:28 AM EST

Snookered by Baldrson's argument. I apologize, Elenchos.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Bowery is no more a Nazi than Abe Lincoln (3.50 / 2) (#38)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:38:36 AM EST

Abe Lincoln expelled Jews from boarder states during the civil war-and opposed inter-racial marriage. I have never seen one post by this man that indicated support for the of the Nazi party. Frankly, I've seen Jim post things that anger Nazi's much more than anything liberals say to/about them(i.e. his suggestion that Adolph Hitler was quite likely of Jewish ancestry and didn't really do much for the German people-that just isn't the writings of a "Nazi").

I wouldn't even put Jim in the broader category of facist. If you want to look at facism, just go look at the West Bank in Palestine today--or perhaps go to LA, New York City, Miami or Chicago and watch how young black males are shaken down by cops.

Nazi's are the modern day equivalent of the boogie man. Simple fact is that Hitler was way below Stalin and Mao in body count(even as a portion of target population look at what Mao did the Tibetans). If you've been snookered by anyone it is a racist media elite that places far more value on the lives of their own tribe than they do the lives of anyone else.

[ Parent ]

Bodycount? (none / 0) (#51)
by StrontiumDog on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 07:22:05 AM EST

This source gives a more nuanced picture.

[ Parent ]
Major Academic on this Topic (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:54:13 PM EST

I appreciate the work on the source the prior author mentioned. I think that Rummel's work deserves some mention here also. Rummel is an authoritative professional in this field.

The real question here: how can democide/genocide/war really be avoided sustainably? We've seen mass murders that were both racist and internationalist-neither side has a monopoly on evil.



[ Parent ]

You're right (4.42 / 7) (#37)
by Lode Runner on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:31:43 AM EST

Elenchos, I don't agree with your politics much, but you've hit the nail on the head this time.

Don't let all the ones and zeros get you down; those people don't know enough about genetics and/or are desparate to see a science article on K5. I'm a trained molecular biologist and I'm sick of dealing with these eugenicist, white supremacist nutjobs!

Baldrson is absolutely full of shit. He's trying to base a scientific argument on the results of the Oxford Ancestors Ltd's Y-Line and MatriLine tests. Nowhere does Baldrson mention that these tests are for entertainment purposes only. In fact, MatriLine tests are now available in gift packs! Read the FAQ and you're sure to be disappointed if you're hoping for some meaningful insight into your genetic lineage.

People, these "tests" are a publicity stunt for Oxford Ancestors Ltd, a somewhat dubious enterprise which one must never confuse with Oxford University's prestigious Institute of Molecular Medicine. The former's work may be derived from the latter's, but you won't see the latter (not even Bryan Sykes) vouching for the former's attempt "...to harness the power and precision of modern DNA-based genetics for use in genealogy".

Sigh... As a postdoc I had to deal with folks like Baldrson when they showed up at the lab. They don't come to learn either. Many of them wanted to verify their "racial purity". There's no way to do this, of course, but they wouldn't take "no" for an answer... I've wasted days ignoring these guys as they harangued me about the dangers of immigration and miscegenation. And damnit all, one of them is still mailing me Lyndon Larouche newsletters.



[ Parent ]

Calling someone a Nazi without Proof (2.33 / 3) (#41)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:58:18 AM EST

>I'm a trained molecular biologist and I'm sick of dealing with these eugenicist, white supremacist nutjobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Where is your proof this guy is a a) white Supremicist
b) eugenicist?

Frankly, from what I can see, you use loaded words in a rather slopping fashion here.

>In fact, MatriLine tests are now available in gift packs! Read the FAQ and you're sure to be disappointed if you're hoping for some meaningful insight into your genetic lineage. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you think might constitute a methodology for "meaningful insight" into ones "genetic lineage"? This stuff sure strikes me a step forward over conventional genealogy.

>Sigh... As a postdoc I had to deal with folks like Baldrson when they showed up at the lab. They don't come to learn either. Many of them wanted to verify their "racial purity". There's no way to do this, of course, but they wouldn't take "no" for an answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would agree that "racial purity" makes little sense as a scientific term. However, it is theoretically possible to measure the degree to which a given individual has a homozygous vs. heterozygous genotype. It is also theoretically possible to measure the degree to which a given individual might be typical of some historic population. Now, do you question them moral legitimacy of such goals? It that what this rant is really about?



[ Parent ]

put away your sockpuppet (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Lode Runner on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:02:21 AM EST



[ Parent ]
homozygous vs. heterozygous (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by nodsmasher on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:09:45 PM EST

no mater how "racialy pure" sombody is there still going to have some heterozygous genotypes, these recesive traits are within ethnic groups, this is why the term racialy pure is pure crap
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Emotional terminology (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:48:05 PM EST

IMHO it is rather counter-constructive to use terms like "pure crap" when having an intellectual debate. The question of a given individual is homozygous vs. heterozygous is a matter of degree. Now, in practice, over 95% of the human genotype is identical to a chimp-that 95% and more just doesn't vary much at all from individual to individual.

Now, in given individuals, the degree of homozygous vs. heterozygous genotype does vary. ?Ultimately it is just a number. Now, historically there is a lot of political stuff that goes around where people are essentially claiming a "pure" or homozygous genotype and getting some milage around that.

In livestock and plant breeding a lot of effort goes into creating homozygous strains. The reason is that these strains are useful in maintaining a degree of consistant hybrid vigor in a population.

The question that remains here: are the human examples of installing a nobility-which has happened in many separate societies- pure superstition or is there some basis in it historically.



[ Parent ]

homozygous (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by nodsmasher on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 07:55:25 PM EST

homozygou only meens that the genotype has both copys of teh same gene (both resesive or both dominant) having both be the same in plants helps becouse then if you bread 2 tall plants together you wont acedentaly get some short ones. in people there are millions of little traits that can be domanant or ressesive no matter what race you are there are veriations in the gene pool and some people have both the resesive and domanant gene and would be heterozygous, thus being homozygous really meens nothing at all and is really junk sciene (or pure crap as i called it last time)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
So because some use it for that, all have to? (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by tzanger on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 09:46:13 AM EST

    Don't let all the ones and zeros get you down; those people don't know enough about genetics and/or are desparate to see a science article on K5. I'm a trained molecular biologist and I'm sick of dealing with these eugenicist, white supremacist nutjobs!
I'd love to know where my family came from. So far we've got it traced back to Prussia but if I want to see what my Y-chromosomal genetic distribution is I'm now a white supremacist or eugenicist?



[ Parent ]
Getting Specific (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 08:20:39 PM EST

So, as "a trained molecular biologist" do you or do not agree with this statement (ignoring for the sake of English-as-a-second-language writers the irrelevant formalities such as spelling):

homozygou only meens that the genotype has both copys of teh same gene (both resesive or both dominant) having both be the same in plants helps becouse then if you bread 2 tall plants together you wont acedentaly get some short ones. in people there are millions of little traits that can be domanant or ressesive no matter what race you are there are veriations in the gene pool and some people have both the resesive and domanant gene and would be heterozygous, thus being homozygous really meens nothing at all and is really junk sciene (or pure crap as i called it last time)

Also, what is your full name, your current professional position and what institution awarded you your degree(s) in molecular biology?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

you insult our intelligence (3.60 / 5) (#113)
by Lode Runner on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 01:21:08 AM EST

So, as "a trained molecular biologist" do you or do not agree with this statement

As a brainwashed anti-racist ideologue I believe that nodsmasher's heart is in the right place but he/she needs to thoroughly review the second half of last week's assigned readings on allelic expression.

But this isn't a GEN 202 mid-term, and nodsmasher's comment must taken in the context of this exchange. I'd say it's futile to talk about genomics problems in Mendelian terms. You ^H^H^H nomoreh1b seems to grasp basic genetic concepts but has obviously never touched a genomics textbook.

Also, what is your full name, your current professional position and what institution awarded you your degree(s) in molecular biology?

Sir Francis Crick. Professor emeritus, Cambridge University. I must confess that I was never awarded a degree in molecular biology per se, but I did coin the term in my introductory essay to Bragg (fils) just after the war. In 1953, I, along with a young fellow named Jim Watson, discovered the physical structure of a complex and important molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA.

(sotto voce: but seriously... I hope nobody here expects me to give out my real name and meatspace location to a race-obsessed wacko like Baldrson. My position that he's based his argument on an overpriced, pseudoscientific coffeetable curio is strong enough without an appeal to authority.)

Oh, there's also a purely technical reason why a number of us suspect that Baldrson is posting under more than one name. Follow the uids. Sorry to spoil the game, folks, but frankly I'm hurt and I just want it to stop. Baldrson's made a mockery of the tremendous effort I've put into name-brand personas like "medham" and "streetlawyer". You can't just spout the same nonsense from a bunch of different spigots, you must create whole personas, each with tragic weaknesses, and each grappling in his unique way with what Sartre called Man's futile quest to become God.



[ Parent ]

Now We're Supposed to Believe... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 04:04:00 AM EST

I demanded of the "trained molecular biologist": "what is your full name, your current professional position and what institution awarded you your degree(s) in molecular biology?"

To which "Lode Runner", whoever he is, replied:

"I hope nobody here expects me to give out my real name and meatspace location to a race-obsessed wacko like Baldrson.... effort I've put into name-brand personas like "medham" and "streetlawyer".

And, of course, we're supposed to believe that this persona -- the "trained molecular bilogist" persona is the real one while, at the same time we are supposed to find it impossible to believe that a "brainwashed anti-racist ideologue" would ever be sophisticated enough to fool even himself into believing he isn't one.

Notice, for example, the folks who are yammering endless ad hominem attacks and argument by assertion -- even the "trained molecular biologist" who, presumably, would have a lot more of substance to offer, particularly given his investment of time and effort in fabricating personas while claiming, via them, that they have been duped by me.

It makes people who don't want to be subjected to his brand of diseased verbal warfare wonder what it is such yammerers are so frightened of that they can't calm down long enough to compose a coherent argument in opposition to the things they yammer mercilessly at.

I'm sure "Lode Runner" whoever it is, will be "hurt" once again when it discovers, as I warned its other persona that sooner or later no one but the other emotionally crippled sophisticates will care about its mind games because everyone has more urgent things to attend to -- like the problems created by an incredibly diseased culture that puts people like "Lode Runner" at the heads of classes teaching young impressionable minds in exchange for the money those young people might otherwise have been able to spend on starting a family.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

I am legion (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by medham on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 02:55:47 PM EST

You'll notice that I have asked several specific questions about your article in this thread that have not been answered in any substantive way.

There are no coherent definitions for "politically viable" phenotypes. Your "country-city" dichotomy is unsound, unsupportable even. You invested your article with enough jargon that the "community" was unable to see its not-so hidden message (or perhaps some did and wanted to discuss it, truth setting you free and such).

My preferred view is that someone has carefully developed a persona with years of usenet postings and a hard-earned web page (similar in some ways to the Jin Wicked troll) and is taking full advantage of the assumed identity. I have nothing against this in principle, though you should recognize when you've been discovered and move on to something else.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Try Again Noname (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 03:05:47 PM EST

You'll notice that I have asked several specific questions about your article in this thread that have not been answered in any substantive way.

No you haven't.

There are no coherent definitions for "politically viable" phenotypes.

Aside from the fact that I provide such and even broke it down to pablum for you, the issue was not even in my article -- it was rather your red-herring.


-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

I love you. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by bakuretsu on Mon Mar 11, 2002 at 03:19:56 AM EST

Articulation (in the sense of vocal expression) is more satisfying to me in this instance than the debate over who has more credibility.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]
He believes that the races should not mix (4.50 / 4) (#48)
by Hopfrog on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:10:06 AM EST

Here.

Its all a lot of pseudo-science.

Hop.

[ Parent ]

+1 (3.28 / 7) (#4)
by Ken Pompadour on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 07:58:20 PM EST

But I don't have the first clue what I'm voting for.

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
on 1st impression... (none / 0) (#142)
by 'abstrakt on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 04:15:45 AM EST

It seems that many people did that. The lure of fancy biotechnical jargon perhaps?

I'm curious to know what sort of motivations people had for voting this story up.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (3.00 / 6) (#7)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:05:54 PM EST

For posting that, Baldrson.

I have a couple of quick questions: 1) Why is it important for people to know their genetic makeup (I think I know, but I believe you could elaborate)? and 2) Was it New "Zeeland" you were talking about?

Also, could you provide some more details about your travails on Usenet? Thx.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Old Zeeland (none / 0) (#14)
by Doktor Merkwuerdigliebe on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:23:31 PM EST

2) Was it New "Zeeland" you were talking about?

Given the fact that other Dutch provinces were named specifically, I think it's safe to assume he was talking about the original Zeeland, one of the Netherlands, after which New Zealand was in fact named (back in the days when Australia was named New Holland, though that name didn't stick).

Anyway, to the author: excellent article, but one minor nitpick though, you say that it started in "a little Hanseatic city in the area of northern Holland", but I should point out that Groningen is of course not in Holland proper. Seeing how you named the different Dutch provinces individually, that might lead to some confusion. It should read "a little Hanseatic city in the area of the northern Netherlands". Yes, a very minor nitpick, but if you're going to consider yourself as someone of Dutch descent, I'm sure you'll appreciate it... ;)

Also Sprach Doktor Merkwürdigliebe...
[ Parent ]
Thank you, doc (none / 0) (#16)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:26:34 PM EST

I believe that you know what you're talking about, and your reading makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking, given New Zealand's location and all.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

You're welcome... (none / 0) (#18)
by Doktor Merkwuerdigliebe on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:32:47 PM EST

Maybe I should clarify that of the names in the list he gave, Groningen, Friesland (Frisia), Limburg, Holland and Zeeland are all Dutch provinces (i.e. some of the Netherlands), so you can see why he would consider himself of Dutch descent.

Also Sprach Doktor Merkwürdigliebe...
[ Parent ]
Isn't zeeland an island of denmark? (none / 0) (#78)
by murklamannen on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:19:14 PM EST

I thought Zeeland was the english name of what i know as "Gylland"(the swedish name).

[ Parent ]
Another Zealand (none / 0) (#108)
by Doktor Merkwuerdigliebe on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 08:25:01 PM EST

Well, that's Sjælland, the main island of Denmark. I think it's also called Zealand in English, but it's not what was meant here (Zeeland), nor is it what New Zealand was named after.

Also Sprach Doktor Merkwürdigliebe...
[ Parent ]
One other thing (3.50 / 6) (#8)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:08:27 PM EST

I read your sig on your newsgroup postings about duelling (good job, btw), and I was wondering if you could give some more information about how genes can be "political" and "apolitical"? After Danny Dennett, I think we all know that genes are "selfish," but I'm still a bit confused about their macropolitical implications.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Politics, Population Density and Calories (4.20 / 5) (#31)
by Baldrson on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 11:53:40 PM EST

High population environments tend to require political skills that low population environments do not. Low population environment tend to require technical skills that high population environments do not. Population density tends to be calorically limited and paleolithic evolutionary history (that is to say the vast majority of our ancestral environments) had long stretches of time with large differences in caloric availability over wide areas. That generates differentiation. When agriculture hit -- caloric availability went through a very profound increase in certain areas and generated these intensely populated spots called cities -- hence intense selection for politically survivable phenotypes. However, someone had to stay out in the low population density areas to keep producing the calories for the cities -- hence a rather pathological tension between hunter-gatherer and farmer and citizen starting many thousands of years ago. According to E. O. Wilson (in "On Human Nature"), it only takes about 50 generations of moderate selective pressure to get some pretty impressive phenotypic shifts resulting from genetic selection so there are likely to be some pretty impressive differences between populations evolved to live in cities and those evolved on farms as well as between populations evolved in the tropics and those where calories were less available to paleolitics.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

The corollaries (2.50 / 4) (#34)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:26:31 AM EST

Of your first two sentences are also true and thus redundant, I think.

Consequently, we still have to define "politically survivable phenotypes."

The logic of your "However, someone had to stay..." sentence escapes me. Nor do I understand what "selective pressures" are presumably operant in your scenario.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

uhh... (3.50 / 2) (#36)
by Anonymous American on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:12:26 AM EST

I'm just a simple autodidactic buffoon, but if you slow down and think about the post you will realize the first two sentences are not redundant. You may also realize that "However someone had to stay" means that some one had to live in the low population areas. In other words a city does not feed itself, someone has to run the farm.

[ Parent ]
Using People Stuff vs Using Non-People Stuff (4.66 / 3) (#39)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:40:11 AM EST

politically survivable phenotypes: heritable charicteristics of people that render them capable of dominating other people in their environment while investing minimum consciousness, visibility and resources.

"someone had to stay" assumes cities had to continue to exist -- and assumes agriculture was not totally mechanized (as it is now becoming).

Basically, if you are surrounded by stuff, you evolve to use it. If the stuff is people -- particularly people who aren't your kin, the selective pressures are for what I have called "political" phenotypes and their genes. Verbal skills -- particularly the ability to acquire foreign languages during adulthood (something Scotch-Irish are notoriously poor at doing) -- are high on the list of such phenotypes.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

on Wilson, (4.00 / 1) (#83)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:39:04 PM EST

I would be interested in seeing what kind of empirical "evidence" this wilson person has cooked to show these claims as being evidenced.

also, just curious but are you an anthropolgy student, a bio student some 200 years old or a computer programmer who fancies himself an expert after reading a book or two.



[ Parent ]
This "Wilson person"? (2.66 / 3) (#86)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:49:33 PM EST

I'm going to send some books to the McGill U library fund right away.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

sigh (3.00 / 1) (#92)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:24:46 PM EST

I have more pressing concerns right now than to go to the library and look up wilson. I live off campus and I have my share of mid terms. On monday I have Physical chemistry, if you have anything to say about Raymond Chang's Physical Chemistry for the chemical and biological sciences i'd be inclined to here it.

I came here to K5 for some leisure reading, not to be baited, flamed, trolled at and insulted by someone who obviously has too much spare time and a good library on hand.


[ Parent ]
Just a teaser (3.66 / 3) (#95)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:30:03 PM EST

E.O. Wilson, Southerner and American, is an important entomologist. He is one of the world experts on formicative social behavior. In 1976, he published the landmark Sociobiology, the final chapter of which on human social behavior was quite controversial. A few years later he fueled the fire with On Human Nature. There was a great deal of debate about the political implications of Wilson's ideas, with Gould and Lewontin (also both at Harvard) being among his primary antagonists.

A few years ago, he published the hubristic Consilience which argues an odd humanist positivism. He has also published some sensible arguments about the environment.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

people like you ruin the entire experience. (2.00 / 2) (#93)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:25:30 PM EST

so fall in a hole and rot.

[ Parent ]
Who is Wilson (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:35:01 PM EST

Wilson's Sociobiology is one of those classics. I would also check out The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins.

My impression is that a lot of political controversy surrounds this area.



[ Parent ]

interesting ideas though (3.00 / 2) (#84)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:41:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
yeah (none / 0) (#99)
by fhotg on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:10:57 PM EST

for example the idea that an agricultural population and a city population living in a proximity that enabels them to trade food will stay genetically separated for 50 generations.

[ Parent ]
Ashkenazi Jews (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:57:29 PM EST

for example the idea that an agricultural population and a city population living in a proximity that enabels them to trade food will stay genetically separated for 50 generations.

For example Ashkenazi Jews:

Despite the Ashkenazi Jews' long residence in Europe, their Y signature has remained distinct from that of non-Jewish Europeans.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

outch (3.00 / 2) (#114)
by fhotg on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 01:54:15 AM EST

So have these Jews more countryside or city - genes ?

Your example proves my point. A genetically isolated community, based on religion not on location or a certain (socioeconomic)environment. Au contraire, an excellent example in terms of geographic mobility.

Now go, figure out where your anchestors lost that logic - gene.

[ Parent ]

Cities are reproductive sinks (5.00 / 4) (#116)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 02:20:22 AM EST

>So have these Jews more countryside or city - >genes ?
According to George Gilder, in Men and Marriage, Cities have historically been "population sinks" (i.e. urban populations did not reproduce effectively). What makes Jews in this sense unusual, is that they are an identifiable population that has reproduced effectively for a long time despite having a larger component of their population in urban areas that any other identifiable European group. (there may be other groups that have reproduced well in cities over similar periods of time, but is sure isn't clear who they are).



[ Parent ]

Jews Are the Most Urban Deme (4.50 / 2) (#124)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 01:47:22 PM EST

Although it should be common knowledge, Jews -- particularly those in diaspora away from Africa -- comprise the most urbanized deme whose genetics have been studied as a deme. This fact can be ascertained by a quick perusal of websites for those without the educational background in comparative anthropology.

The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire
... early 19th century, to the city of Fergana about a ... the big cities where the Jews mostly
lived. In 1934 the Jewish rural population in Uzbekistan numbered 4 ...

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

okay (none / 0) (#130)
by fhotg on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 04:47:45 PM EST

So the Ashkenazi also were particularly urban. Accepted, lacking the knowledge here.

Anyway Jews are a very special case of cultural and supposedly genetic consistency. By no means enough to support your general theory, one example does a theory not make. And I doubt if you can come up with the 4 or 5 more needed to make this theory relevant. Also, a look at magnitude and frequency of major migration pulses between urban and rural areas will likely kill any further speculation in that direction.

Apart from that, now that you have your perfect case study, where and what are the so developed Jewish genetic traits ?

And don't give me that "higher IQ" argument, I hope you see that it's not floating, given the highly speculative nature of IQ - genetic linkage for a phenomenon way better explained by superior education and upbringing based in Jewish tradition.

[ Parent ]

Resistance to disease (5.00 / 2) (#132)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 05:49:54 PM EST

One place I'd look here is resistance to various diseases. Historically, cities were hotspots of disease. Basically from that list, resistance for anemia might be highly advantageous if one was dependent upon a high grain diet-which in the days before refrigiration would be somewhat characteristic of urban environments(fresh fruits and vegies and free meat would be harder to get in a city compared to grains that keep well).

There are other diseases that relate specifically to urban environments:
Smallpox
Syphilis
Black Plague

What I've seen here is that resistance to these diseases seems somewhat associated with the B blood type(I've seen studies that claim about 70% of Jews are Type B blood type)-and the link above claims that people with the type A blood type are especially vulnerable to syphilis statistically.

Other areas I would look at: tendency towards alchoholism. As a general rule, people with ancestry in Northern Europe tend to be vulnerable to alchoholism(as are other peoples that have little history of living in agricultural societies). Jews and Italians were both classified as groups with extremely low tendencies towards alchoholism according to the study done by Andrew Greeley at the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. Basically, urban environments have certain stresses associated with living there-and some people cope via drugs and alchohol-and some groups are differentially immune to the problems associated with drugs and alchohol.

Now, does this mean that Native Americans, Tibetans, Northern Europeans and other peoples with relatively little history of living in highly urbanized environments are inferior? No, only if you assume that the only possible future of humanity involves increased urbanization. In terms of exposing genetic self interest here though, for some groups, a future of urbanization is a far more dismal fate than for others. Some groups can reproduce in urban environments and for others, urbanization is just a slow process of genocide. One problem here, is that the places where major decision tend to be made, is in urban environments-this is where we find political, financial and media centers-that strikes me as a problem.



[ Parent ]

a beautiful post (none / 0) (#134)
by fhotg on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 09:32:15 PM EST

because you show the "line" and how to cross it so clearly.

That an environment prone to certain diseases can be a significant selective pressure I do not dispute.

Usually the geographically determined bioclimatic environment would be the predictor, but in a hypothetical case where an assumed genetically isolated group inhabits mostly urban environments with its associated microbiological conditions, unchanged over 1000 years (believing the Wilson quote above), your reasoning is conceivable (although the blood-type correlation strikes me as too sketchy).

Drug abuse, on the other hand, is not a biological disease but clearly caused by social factors, mediated by psychological, cultural and traditional influences, which will kill instantaneously every correlation->causation fallacy you can come up with in order to postulate the 'alcoholism-genotype'

(Your fourth paragraph is inherently contradictory, I think you want to substitute "agricultural societies" with "urban societies")

If, for example, somebody would come up with the genetic difference between Native Americans and Settlers(I guess you could find this) and the strikingly shocking record of drug abuse among Native Americans, and then tries to make an argument how this shows that Natives are biologically more prone to killing themselves at an early age by means of intoxication, then, this person would be beaten to the metaphorically bloody mess with my cluestick.

In your last paragraph (implying the possibility of "inferiority" of peoples under other peoples (**it smells in here**)you postulate genetically determined groups, who, by political means, try to influence humanities future in favour of their genetic makeup (**the stench doesn't get better, the conspiracy-for-Lebensraum - flag triggers**).

Finally you show colors, its 'us' (North Europeans with Tibetan and Native support) against the genetic group controlling the world of politics, finance and media, which happens also to be adapted to urban environments (Who could that possibly be ? **it reeks**, I go vomit, and after I hit the street to beat up some Skins, just to balance my reading).

...und deine Eltern hatten niemals fuer dich Zeit - Arschloch !

[ Parent ]

Turkish Resistance to Opiate addiction (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 10:43:38 PM EST

>Drug abuse, on the other hand, is not a biological disease but clearly caused by social factors, mediated by psychological, cultural and traditional influences, which will kill instantaneously every correlation->causation fallacy you can come up with in order to postulate the 'alcoholism-genotype'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I would agree that there is a mix of factors here. The mass conversion of people of British descent to Methodism seems to have made a significant impact on the degree of alcholism among those populations in which Methodism grew.

Now, one example you may find some evidence on is genetic predisposition to opiate addiction. In Turkey for example, there are rather few people with predisposition to opiate addiction. Why? Because over the centuries people with that predisposition have been weeded out in that part of the world.

The same thing seems to have happened with alchohol addiction in other parts of the world. If you read the Roman accounts, two thousand years ago, Germans had as bad of problems with alchohol being shipped north by Romans as Native Americans are having today. The Romans quite consciously used the trade in wine as a weapon of war(in fact one of the nastier additives used was "lead acetate").



[ Parent ]

Holocaust Denial (3.50 / 2) (#140)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 11:22:32 PM EST

>Other areas I would look at: tendency towards alchoholism. As a general rule, people
>>with ancestry in Northern Europe tend to be vulnerable to alchoholism(as are other
>>peoples that have little history of living in agricultural societies). Jews and Italians were
>> both classified as groups with extremely low tendencies towards alchoholism
>>according to the study done by Andrew Greeley at the National Opinion
>>Research Center of the University of Chicago. Basically, urban environments
>> have certain stresses associated with living there-and some people cope via drugs
>>and alchohol-and some groups are differentially immune to the problems
>>associated with drugs and alchohol.
>If, for example, somebody would come up with the genetic difference between Native
> Americans and Settlers(I guess you could find this) and the strikingly shocking record
of drug abuse among Native Americans, and then tries to make an argument how this
>shows that Natives are biologically more prone to killing themselves at an early age by >
>means of intoxication, then, this person would be beaten to the metaphorically bloody
> mess with my cluestick
As someone of partially Native American descent and a family history of alcoholism that prompted me to study this issue closely, I am rather insulted by your statements here. This isn't an issue for rhetorical grandstanding. It is a question of what the facts are here. If one has a family history of alcholism, IMHO it is prudent to avoid that substance altogether. One nice thing about this genetic testing methodology, at some future point we may be able to establish clearly what our personal and familial vulnerabilties are without having to rely purely on family histories that are not entirely reliable. Your milage may vary. I was motivated by my family history to study the issue, thought seriously about the question and decided that alchohol while it might be safe for other people isn't safe for people of my genetic makeup.

>> (Your fourth paragraph is inherently contradictory, I think you want to substitute "agricultural societies" with "urban societies")
No, there is a spectrum here from Hunter gatherer societies, grain-oriented agricultural societies and urban societies-hunter gatherer societies are the least population dense, and urban societies the most population dense. Grain agriculture seems to be a pre-requisite for support of cities in many cases. Grain agriculture came fairly late to Northern Europe-and arrived fairly early in The Middle East and North Africa according to contemporary academic orthodoxy.

>>Now, does this mean that Native Americans, Tibetans, Northern Europeans and other
>>peoples with relatively little history of living in highly urbanized environments are
>>inferior? No, only if you assume that the only possible future of humanity involves
>> increased urbanization. In terms of exposing genetic self interest here though, for some
>>groups, a future of urbanization is a far more dismal fate than for others. Some groups
>>can reproduce in urban environments and for others, urbanization is just a slow process of
>>genocide. One problem here, is that the places where major decision tend to be made, is
>> in urban environments-this is where we find political, financial and media centers-that
>>strikes me as a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>In your last paragraph (implying the possibility of "inferiority" of peoples under other
> peoples (**it smells in here**)you postulate genetically determined groups, who, by
>political means, try to influence humanities future in favour of their genetic makeup
Do you think the European settlers didn't commit genocide again native Americans? Do you deny that those European settlers weren't organized by a Judeo-Christian religion that gave them an organizational advantage? What are you, some kind of holocaust denier?
> (**the stench doesn't get better, the conspiracy-for-Lebensraum - flag triggers**).
I said nothing about a conspiracy here. I don't think that the Mafia for example ran alchohol during prohibition because they wanted to exterminate other populations. I think they just wanted to make some money and saw little harm in this activity because they didn't see a lot of people like them with a problem here
. The Roman's did sell booze to Germans as an act of policy, but that strikes me as rather exceptional. Usually heinous acts involve far less conscious planning.
> I go vomit, and after I hit the street to beat up some Skins, just to balance my
> reading).
Frankly, I think you lack the guts/ability to beat up any skins that I've ever seen-
most likely you hire others to do your dirty work for you. If you really want to
go fight a racist war, there is one in the Middle east going on right now

I do agree that we live in a time when there is a likelyhood of a genocidal attack being unleashed by the United States or other major technological power. Still if you look on the front page on that story on US plans for a nuclear attack, the nations targeted are all non-white(with the exception of Russia).

The idea that a revived German Fourth Reich is a major threat to world peace ranks up there with insane conspiracy theories/wish fantasies. That tactic didn't work 65 years ago, it sure isn't going to work now.



[ Parent ]

Other examples (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 07:47:51 PM EST

Since DNA testing of populations outside the West is so limited, and since Jews so dominate their particular niche within the West, and since the West takes up so much territory world-wide, it will probably be a while before the "4 or 5 more" that you claim are needed to validate the hypothesis (a numeric range that I dispute), are discovered. Since civilizations tend to be limited by their control of trade routes, and the globe has shrunk so rapidly with the expansion of transporation technology, there are only a few candidates to which we might appeal for future validation as DNA testing expands to other societies:

  • The Parsi of India
  • The descendants of Mohommad among Muslim nations
  • Jamacans and Nigerians among Western blacks (possibly analogous to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews respectively)
  • Some sub-class of the Chinese -- probably the groups that took over the niche of the Mandarins when voluntary castration ceased being required for service to the Emperor.
  • Some sub-class of the Japanese -- possibly the group that overtook the Samurai niches when suicide over dishonor was dramatically reduced.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

First of all (none / 0) (#135)
by fhotg on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 09:58:07 PM EST

on an unrelated note, I think about adopting this as my new sig.
..and since the West takes up so much territory world-wide..
Please note that the number of examples would not "validate" any hypothesis, they would be necessary to have a reason starting to think about the hypothesis. (The hypothesis beeing: An urban environment genetically selects for 'political fitness')

Admittedly, your examples do not tell me too much, I'm pretty ignorant about anthropology.

However your wording is interesting. You apply the word "niches" in a way similar to ecological niches usually used when talking about different species, to one species (humans) but different ..hm what ? genetic traits, ethnic groups, religions ?

What for example is your exact idea of the "niche" in

and since Jews so dominate their particular niche within the West
?? I'm curious.

[ Parent ]
Scientific Inference 101 (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 10:30:16 PM EST

According to your logic, a scientific prediction cannot be made before it has been observed.

To use a well publicized example:

When the bending of lightwaves predicted by Einstein's general relativity was observed during an eclipse, it was known that there had never been such observations done before.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

I'm getting an allergy (none / 0) (#139)
by fhotg on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 10:56:59 PM EST

against the word "scientific", in certain contexts.

See, "scientific predictions" are based on theories. A theory is the best explanaition we can come up with for things we observe. In this case, we have huge trouble finding stuff to observe in the first place, and thus no theory. No, your thoughts on the matter do not qualify for 'scientific theory'. In case I'm missing out on a body of knowledge incorporating 'political favourable genetical traits' and 'the niche of Jews in society', please fill me in.

[ Parent ]

Another question (2.83 / 6) (#10)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:16:58 PM EST

What did Jung know about genetics? From what I remember of the "Aryan Christ," as that scurrilous biographer called him, he didn't seem to make many direct links between the "collective unconscious" and specifically genetic mechanisms.

Some critics attributed this to Jung not knowing too much about the fledgling science or caring, really.

Another thing: why is it that some of the types who are so hostile to your arugments here enjoy Jungian personality-tests?

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Also (3.00 / 1) (#17)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:28:24 PM EST

I believe it's "Carl." You don't want to mix him up with Marx or Kraus, for example (I think you know what I mean...)

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Jung and Genetic Archetypes (3.66 / 3) (#29)
by Baldrson on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 11:20:24 PM EST

Jung didn't know all that much about genetics, I suspect -- rather I suspect he noticed something in common about tribal spiritual practices world-wide involving ancestors and went on to spectulate a bit about what he thought were genetically encoded memories. However, his relationship with Pauli clearly indicates he thought his "depth psychology" was something more ineffable than the sort of causal mechanism implied by quasi-Lamarkian heritable memories. It is that ineffable quality that came out in Pauli's dream:

Jung challenged Pauli to come up with a more fundamental theory that would unite his depth psychology with modern physics. Pauli never published anything systematic on his efforts in this direction, but he left some fascinating hints in a variety of private communications3. One such was in what he called a "meditation" written for his friend the psychoanalyst Maria von Franz4. Drawn from reflections on his dreams and visions, it chronicles his Jungian struggle to unify the opposites in his own nature. It ends with a striking vision in which a woman presents him with a golden ring called the "ring of i", referring to the unit circle in the complex plane. On the mundane level, this is the plane of quantum amplitudes, but on the mystical level, the ring in the plane is the secret that will enable us to unify our inner life with our understanding of the outer world. There is no way in which the science of his time, or of our own, can make much sense of this vision.

What I suspect is that our ancestry -- going all the way back to the origins of life and perhaps beyond -- is infused with this "spiritual" structure akin to that sought by Jung and Pauli -- and that the task of 21st century science and technology is to get over the idea that conflicts of interest are the long and short of consciousness of our evolutionary differences -- that consciousness of our differences is a necessary step toward appreciating them not just suffering them -- just as control experiments are necessary for novel experimentation and as the past is a necessary context in which to experience the present.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Well (2.50 / 2) (#35)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:37:57 AM EST

The quoted paragraph sounds a bit like Pythragorean mysticism to me, and I don't see how your concluding paragraph follows from it. In fact, I've detected something of an idée fixe in your story and postings.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Another question (none / 0) (#46)
by bodrius on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:46:12 AM EST

Jung believed the "collective unconscious" was a collection of archetypes universal to the human species.

Whenever he found them, he was often hard pressed to find some way the individual unconscious could have come up with these images again and again, with no apparent contact between subjects, or with cultural artifacts that explored these ideas.

Many of the patients that convinced him of the reality of the "collective unconscious" were European burgois or low-class schizophrenics, not exactly cultured or interested into mythology, mysticism, alchemy or theological mysteries, where he found references to the same images. Another case was the recurrence of the same archetypes on the diary of a dying girl (<12 years old, I think). He was forced to discard cryptamnesia for cases like that.

If experience could not provide causality for these images, where did they come from? Jung was forced by logic to conclude they were an original part of the human psyche, innate and, therefore, universal to the species. Because of the fundamental role they played in the psyche, it seemed the archetypes were an integral part of its structure, and evolved with it in the human animal. That pretty much meant it was as much part of the human genome as the structure of the brain.

That direct link was made clearly enough. The genetic mechanism by which the archetypes reproduced was not new, nor were the consequences: straightforward reproduction and Darwinian evolution. Since he considered the images universal to the species, there were no less and no more links to make.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
[ Parent ]
Charlemagne (4.00 / 3) (#11)
by medham on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 08:20:36 PM EST

Does Sykes's service tell you exactly how to trace your lineage back to the titular ruler mentioned in the subject line above?

Your parenenthetical note about "sum totals" left me a bit confused. Do you not want to discuss Sykes and what he's doing?

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Sykes, Frisians, Chaukians, Franks and Norse (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by Baldrson on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 10:34:20 PM EST

Sykes didn't provide any help in regard to historic interpretation of the Y-line, although there is some Matriline history offered and, for a nominal additional fee, there is a service offered that will tell you whether your Y-line is "Viking" -- perhaps with some details. My mentioning of "sum total" was merely to disclaim any financial or business interest in Oxford Ancestors or any other of the DNA testing services.

I discovered the connection with the Franks by doing a web search and coming across the following web page on the history of the Frisians that mentions the "Chaukians (a Germanic tribe neighboring north of Friesland)" -- which is to say the area near Groningen (assuming ancient borders are approximately the present ones).

Uh oh... you've got me started... This is going to be worse than home movies. :-)

Since that area flooded completely for a long time (people were building islands to live on more/rather than dikes) it is thought the original Chaukians may have completely abandoned the area and, unlike the Frisians, didn't return. So it is likely that the strong connection to coastal Scandanavia in my distribution indicates a connection with Godfried the Norweigian -- last Viking ruler of Friesland. -- not Charlemagne or his Frankish ancestors such as Charles Martel.

Here's yet more than you wanted to know (since I already had it typed up for a private email I sent to others who had an interest in the subject -- not that you did, of course :-)

From this page:
In this period a fraction of the Frisians and the Chaukians (a Germanic tribe neighboring north of Friesland) form a new tribal alliance called the Franks. This is the tribe that will emigrate south and form the Frankish Empire (currently known as France).

After 400 A.D. the rising of the sea level halted. There is a possibility that a part of the Frisian people and their nobility returned to the Frisian clay-district which, by then, had already been colonized by peoples from the Elbe and Sleeswick/Holstein region. These tribes assimilated and continued as the Frisian tribe we know today.

In 300 A.D. other smaller West Germanics tribes had also formed larger tribal-groups known as: Allemandes, Saxons, Thuringers, and Bayerns. The Chaukian tribe disappears altogether. It has assimilated in the Frisian- and Saxon-tribe.

From this page:
In 885 the last Scandinavian ruler of Friesland, Godfried the Norwegian, is murdered and the ruling Danes are evicted from Friesland by the Frisians. The great tidal waves of Heathenistic Viking raids (sometimes accompanied with occupation) in Friesland, had come to an end. Smaller raids still took place until 1014 A.D. when the Christian Knut the Great became king of Denmark, Norway and England.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

State of the current methodology (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:24:39 AM EST

As I understand it, the best you might do if you suspected you might be the patrilineal descendent of Charlemagne is compare your Y-chromosomal results with people that a similar Y-chromosome to yours and established genealogies-even then it would be something of a statistical process-many of these genealogies were pure fabrications.

Keep in mind that the Y-Chromosomal information tends to degrade over time.

Some services are matching people up with people that share their Y-Chromosome. It is hard to tell what this really amounts to-and frankly, I don't think we'll know for some time.

It will be especially interesting to see is how folks relate to "relatives" that don't look at all like them(about 40% of all African Americans have Y-Chromosomes similar to European groups and 5-15% of all White southerners in the US have mitochondrial DNA that indicates they have either Native American or African ancestry.

I suspect that is will only be when folks start comparing notes with others that share their Y-chromosome that we'll figure out that this particular genetic factor really does/means.



[ Parent ]

I Suspect (none / 0) (#49)
by Dr Sam Beckett on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:25:05 AM EST

Its not at all unusual for Americans to have American Indian blood in their systems. Making no excuses for our genocide, without the Indians, America would be just like UK, and that's not a good thing cuz I like my cold beer.

[ Parent ]
infidelity (none / 0) (#55)
by ucblockhead on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 10:46:29 AM EST

many of these genealogies were pure fabrications.
You also have to consider the rate of infidelity. When you go back forty-five generations, the likelihood that someone's father was not who they thought it was is pretty high.

The Y chromosome is also the smallest chromosome, and therefore likely carries the least amount of information.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Historically-out of family infidelity not high (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:35:21 PM EST

The data from the Sykes study and the study of Jewish Cohen suggests that in those cases, most infidelity is historically low or involves men with the same y-chromosome. In both of these studies, about 50% of the men tested had similar y-chromosomes. Now, in recent tests (cited by Prof. Robin Baker and Jared Diamond) the rate of observed cuckoldry was much higher(around 10% per generation), which means that the current situation is a bit of a anomaly in historical terms.

Now, there are some explainations for the data in the Sykes study and the Cohen study: it is plauible that the offspring of cuckoldry have less viabilty historically than other offspring(i.e. their fathers don't make the same sacrifices as they would for offspring with which they are related). It is also plausible that historically men with a different Y-chromosome would simply not get sexual access to a female being provided for by a male with a given y-chromosome. Chimps for example are promiscuous, but guard their territories very jealously(females are welcome, but outside males are likely to get killed).



[ Parent ]

Lode Runner (none / 0) (#33)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:18:35 AM EST

Jadis, si je me souviens bien...

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

medham (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Lode Runner on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:59:20 AM EST

Tu le lui as dit tout net, vlan!

So yeah, you of all people should've known better than to egg him on and to bulldog for him, even if you were just taking the piss.

T'as fait un malheur... I am laughing at you but also with you.



[ Parent ]

medham (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by Anonymous American on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:31:10 AM EST

Hmm. Even though I doubted some of the accuracy of the article, medham's pedantic posts annoyed the hell out of me.

désolé pour brancher sur vos testicules



[ Parent ]
hmm (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:02:47 PM EST

je pense que j'enais juste realise que monsieur "medham" c'est un troller, puis j'etais atraper.

me speeel french good.

[ Parent ]
$400 for how much info? (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by thogard on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:00:34 AM EST

I've noticed that serveral places will do geontyping at low rates for properly prepaired samples.

I was wondering how much it would cost to get a sizeable amount of human dna converted to a digital format. If it was a few hundred, I would like to do it just so I can have "pior art" for the soon to follow loss of IP involving our own DNA.

Decode Genetics (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 09:29:55 AM EST

Check Decode Genetics -- a company that is trying to genotype a substantial portion of the population of Iceland for the patent rights.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

We have been conned. (2.80 / 15) (#50)
by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:22:10 AM EST

Here is why.

This person is parading arguments that look very plausible but scratching the surface one sees that he does not care about proper scientific scrutiny.

He has made up his mind about something and now he is trying to "probe it" no matter what.

Rusty: I demand an automatic -1 that I can affix to this individual.

I whish I could -1 this article now.

Thanks to Lode Runner for keep insisting and confronting this idiot.

And thanks for nothing to the people that in place of explaining to me why the "Nazi" ephitet was appropriate decided to 0 an 1 my question earlier in this thread.


---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.

It is good to know who is who. (3.00 / 2) (#100)
by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:16:38 PM EST

The ratings until now to my coment , parent to this posting (in which I show that the poster is a racist of the worst class):


Hopfrog 5
natael 5
strlen 5
tekan 5
emmons 4

Good and thanks.


gibichung 2

You have some hope, but little.

tlhf 1
mgarland 1
nomoreh1b 1
Greyjack 1
Jonathan Walther 1
FuriousXGeorge 1

No comment.



---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
re: who is who (4.50 / 2) (#105)
by gibichung on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 07:05:47 PM EST

The ratings until now to my coment , parent to this posting (in which I show that the poster is a racist of the worst class):

(...)

gibichung 2

You have some hope, but little.

While I appreciate your confidence, you obviously missed the motive behind my rating. First, Mr. Bowery has never made any effort to hide his "interesting" political beliefs, including numerous posts on k5 and his homepage, listed for all to see in his User Info. Second, you weren't the first person to point this out, and you didn't add anything new. Finally, and most importantly, you don't address the article in question at all, instead referring to his past statements and making judgments about his motives in posting. Refute the man's claims, not the man himself. So, where are we? Inflammatory. Redundant. Based on a fallacy. Sounds like 2 material to me.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
The real worse class of racists hide who they are (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 06:23:29 AM EST

IMHO the real worse class of racists frequently hide their beliefs. Mao,the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century by some accounts, draped himself in the banner of International Socialism-yet managed to commit acts of genocide against the people of Tibet. One of my professors in college suggested that had Hitler downplayed his German nationalism a bit and been just a little more inclusive, he could have created an army with German officers and Slavic soldiers(lots of folks in Russia were rather angry with the Red Army).

I don't see the harm in folks having a tribal or familial identity they are up front about. The folks that worry me are those that claim to be altruistic and PC but really aren't or claim to be someone's brother-but really aren't. We have around us today lots of governments that systematically override scientific knowledge among their populations: In China school children are taught that almost all Chinese are Hans. In Britain, children were until recently taught that the inhabitants of the British Isles from 3000 years ago left few or no descendents. Now, convincing someone they are something they aren't-that is scary to me.



[ Parent ]

Who needs this crap? (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by Mr. Piccolo on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:32:25 PM EST

All I gotta do is ask my grandparents.

The BBC would like to apologise for the following comment.


Grandma Lied (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:13:45 PM EST

About 10% of the time according to Prof. Robin Baker. Equally important, governments put out a lot of energy to create an illusion of relatedness. This has been well documented in the case of how China has treated the Tibetans-it is a little harder to perceive/understand when it is closer to home.



[ Parent ]

pure crap (3.12 / 8) (#57)
by nodsmasher on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 12:53:04 PM EST

how exactly are you geting maternal data from a y chromazon when only men have y chromazons ?
and that atgc crap you spewed out not only means nothing to people reading this but also meens nothing to any one period, the genetic variation betweeen people is so negligable that simply puting down a couple dozen base pairs whould show absolutly nothing
doing what you sugesting would be done a complete diferent way and would cost about 10 times what you sugest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
Mitochondrial DNA (none / 0) (#71)
by dachshund on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:43:20 PM EST

how exactly are you geting maternal data from a y chromazon when only men have y chromazons?

I took a look at the sites he mentioned, and it appears that the maternal data he got comes from mitochondrial DNA. It's not terribly useful that I can see, as there are only a handful of different flavors of the stuff shared by the entire human race. Oxford Ancestors has some twaddle about "the seven daughters of Eve" on its page.

The Y-line stuff is a different test entirely, but I suppose you can get them both done at the same time.

[ Parent ]

on the contrary (none / 0) (#91)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:11:07 PM EST

mtDNA is pretty fun stuff for determining certain informations; "Anastasia" of russia was shown to have no relation to the russian royals, all thanks to MtDNA assays.

how many flavours or differences in between these i'm less sure of but I am definitely sure they're usefull for some things.

it basically tells us (for those curious) who our mothers were. The cytoplasm (inside the cell junk)that we inherit is pretty much exclusively from our mother as all we get from dad is the dna that the sperm is bringing. the mitochondrons are sitting in said cytosol.

[ Parent ]
IANAG(eneticist) (none / 0) (#96)
by dachshund on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:54:19 PM EST

I think this page does a good job of summing it the usefulness of mDNA. You're right that it's a good way to test for maternity, because it comes directly from the mother without recombination. On the other hand, the fact that mDNA is much less likely to change as its passed down makes it less reliable as an indicator-- your grandmother is likely to have the same mDNA as you and your mother, etc, and people only very distantly related to you could produce matches as well.

[ Parent ]
oops, mDNA->mtDNA (none / 0) (#97)
by dachshund on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:56:23 PM EST

Er, that's mtDNA, not mDNA. I meant to say it right the first time, really I did.

[ Parent ]
cool page! (none / 0) (#98)
by Subtillus on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:58:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Syke's stuff is far from "twaddle" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:45:31 PM EST

If you are interested in the history of the distant past. Mitochondrial DNA is of limited usefulness in establishing things like recent genealogy and ancestry, but analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of populations can tell you quite a bit about things like likely migration routes. Sykes is coming up with hard, scientific evidence that is rewriting the history of the British Isles-and exposing limits the literary sources.

[ Parent ]
Please, don't you people know, who he is? (2.91 / 12) (#59)
by strlen on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:08:33 PM EST

As Lode Runner put it, Baldrson is a bitter racialist, nativist and pseudo-scientist. I'd also like to add he's a horrid anti-semite. His webpage claims that Chanda Levy was a Mossad agent, and that there's a whole lot of Mossad corruption going on in any case:

[ http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/chandra.html ]

Here's one bizzare anti-semitic comment he's been rambling. Here's a display of his nativism and hatred.

Please, before you accept whatever he's saying as "truth, and nothing but the truth", understand your sources.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
Thank you no more h1b! (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by strlen on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:48:47 PM EST

Apparently, this user doesn't like what I'm saying, yet doesn't wish to present a credible explanation of why my comment somehow lacks quality. Due to his comments, it seems that he could well be Baldrson's double account? Could anyone double check? Rusty?

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Most important question (3.75 / 4) (#66)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 01:51:34 PM EST

Why is this on the front page? Was this a direct insult to my "Slate: Won't Get Duped Again" thesis?

"Critical thinking" is redundant, I think we'll agree. Why is it that no thinks before they vote? If you actually read the article (or followed the links), it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the author is advertising something quite different than matrilineal matchmaking.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Topic Deals with polarizing issues (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:02:14 PM EST

The reason why this made it to front page IMHO is that some folks find a certain appeal in the content here-it is rather different from what they'd get from either the current politically correct media or the "sanctioned" right wing folks (that are really there as straw men that can be easily knocked down when the time comes).

Now, Bowery does touch on topics that tend to really polarize people. This gets into the limitations of a system like K5. Ideally, people would get the articles people like them liked-or could request a representative range of opinion on a given subject if they wanted to get a sense of that. I tend to think that K5 is better than Slashdot or Slate in terms of its editorial policies, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some limitations here when it comes to dealing with really controversial topics.



[ Parent ]

Yes, "polarizing" (3.33 / 3) (#68)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:08:25 PM EST

Baldrson <--> Rest of the world.

A lot of people read K5. A lot of younger journalists at major media outlets browse here for ideas. This is a good thing, in many different ways. Having stuff like this on the front page, though, it just undermines the credibility of the whole outfit in some ways.

Then, you have people who seem to get what it's all about, but try to incite people to vote for the story anyway.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Middle ground is hard to get sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:30:42 PM EST

Contemporary media/politics in the US are as divisive as anything we've seen since Germany in the 20's, when gangs that wanted a restoration of the monarchy were fight international communists in Germany. In the US, we have major candidates that both of the other side truly hates (Nader was actually less disliked by many conservatives than was Gore and less disliked by liberals than Bush).

When I look at what passes for conservative "thought" these days, much of it is rather sad. In that context, I find way Bowery has to say rather refreshing and more deserving of examination that much of what I see in the contemporary mass media.

Frankly, it seems like some of the folks here wish he was just another garden variety racist.



[ Parent ]

Look here (3.00 / 2) (#72)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:52:33 PM EST

Your first paragraph is just completely wrong. There was far more hostility towards Nader by Gore-voters than there was from anyone else, for obvious reasons. Your view of what was happening in Germany in the 20s is aggressively oversimplified.

What Bowery (or "you" or "Anonymous American") had to say was a thinly veiled rant against immigration, clumsily executed.

The last sentence speaks volumes, I think.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Some folks in Israel Don't like the Mossad either (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:21:37 PM EST

There is wealth of expose literature on the Mossad, examples include: By Way of Deception and Gideon's Spies.

Now, I would agree that calling Bowery a "nativist" is closer to the mark than calling him a "fascist" or "Nazi"-but Bowery doesn't really fall into the mainstream of that movement either. One of the reviewers of Pat Buchanan's book, Death of the West made the comment that Buchanan made very little attempt to understand people unlike himself. That comment is much closer to being fair when directed towards Buchanan than it is Bowery. I personally regard Mr. Buchanan as more representative of the mainstream of the contemporary heirs to the Nativist movement in America, and Mr. Bowery as something else, more an extremely moral man that directs attention towards the hypocrisy of both the conservative and liberal elites of our day.



[ Parent ]

Hey now (3.00 / 2) (#75)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 02:58:05 PM EST

At least three of us have now pointed out that we have some fairly obvious multiple account abuse here: Baldrson is the 'scientific' ideologue, nomoreh1b is the reasonable homme moyen sensuel, and Anonymous American is the dullard. All of this might be interesting from a psychoanalytic standpoint, but enough's enough.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

I am not Baldrson/Bowery (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:06:10 PM EST

His posts have far fewer typos/spelling errors than mine do :). Frankly, it sounds like you wish we were all the same person.

What would constitute proof to you that we are not the same person using multiple accounts?



[ Parent ]

French Idiomaniacs Running the Asylum (2.50 / 2) (#85)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:46:09 PM EST

You know, medham, for someone sophisticated enough to put on a reasonable impression of a sycophant in order to draw me out, you really are starting to exhibit signs of sickness. Or is this just another act? There comes a point, you know, when no one but your fellow "sophisticates" cares anymore. One of my most notable characteristics is that I post under my own name in all fora -- and have done so for nearly 3 decades starting when I worked on the first Delphi conferencing system during the early days of the PLATO network.

As for nomoreh1b being a "homme moyen sensuel": while he may have chosen to ignore some of the indoctrination offered to him during his impressionable years by the prestigious university from whence he received his patent of nobility, he has very good recall of the salient facts -- enough so that he can take on a Harvard man with whom he communicates on a regular basis and do so in the Harvard PhD's area of specialty. Now, perhaps given your new level of paranoia you will claim this is due to the fact that they dispense lobotomies at Harvard to keep the leadership of the sheep in line; however -- I think it has at least a little to do with the fact that nomoreh1b not only recalls quite well his education -- but puts it to better use than 99% of the pseudointellectuals out there who hide their intellectual bankruptcy behind pedantic invocation of French idioms.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

I see (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by medham on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 04:55:08 PM EST

Nomoreh1b is your imago.

Posting under your own name doesn't exclude posting under another. I have no doubt that nomoreh1b holds his own with the Harvard man in question. A good allaround type. Muse, sing the praises of the man of many ways...

Is that the system detailed in Ratner's Star, btw?

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Correction (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 05:25:52 PM EST

Posting under your own name doesn't exclude posting under another.

Actually I had forgotten an exception to my rule of no anonymous posting: There was one short story I wrote, I believe it was in late 1979, that I posted under a pen-name to a PLATO groupnotes file for writers. That was the start and end of my unidentified posting career. Prior to that I had used a pseudonym on PLATO for games without any concealment of my real identity and with knowledge of my real name easily discoverable (as is the case with "Baldrson") and widely known enough in the tight-knit PLATO community that asking one or two people in the community was enough to discover my real name without any online searches.

That's it. There are no other candidates for concealed pseudonyms under which I have communicated online during my rather lengthy career in online communications.

But since you seem insistant, in your own inimitable way, of twisting my words around to suit your perverse sense of humor or your perverse sense of reality -- let's just state it:

nomoreh1b and that other guy you called a "dullard" are not me. And no -- this isn't a challenge for you to try and parse the statement in yet another perverse manner. It is simply stating facts in a straightforward manner.

PS: Your ignorance of the PLATO project betrays you, yourself, as a "homme moyen sensuel" -- were it not for your perversions.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

at his site (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by nodsmasher on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 09:12:08 PM EST

is that a real beard ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Zoroastrianism and Scotland's Y-Line Bombshell (4.00 / 2) (#111)
by Baldrson on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 10:36:50 PM EST

Proposition:

The political bombshell being obscured by the withholding of Scotch-Irish Y chromosome data has to do with an ancient con-game played against Celtic mercenaries:

The primary origin of Judaism, Mithraism, Christianity and Islam is Zoroastrianism. Apparently the Phyrgian/Persian/Zoroastrian Cyrus offered to rebuild Solomon's temple upon liberating the Jews from Babylon.

This is also the origin of Midas hence Mithras/Sol Invictus/Christos are all related to Cyrus who Jews called "the anointed one". "Christ" derives from "the anointed one" meaning "the oiled one" -- with the same Latin root as Crisco.

See this Google search

The transition to Christianity was apparently catalyzed by the arrival Celtic mercenaries in Phrygia/Persia who took up this religious tradition and brought it back to the heart of the Roman Empire via Mithraism -- the original function of which was to provide morale for the mercenaries -- but which eventually substituted for payment, the promise of eternal reward in the after-life.

See this NY Times article.

This, use of Mithras worship was a way of reducing payments to mercenaries of the Roman Empire, became the foundation of not only Christianity but of Masonry -- particularly the York and Scottish Rites that are divided by the mercenary mason constructed Hadrian's wall -- the site of Mithras worship structures at that border -- and likely site where Celts were used against their own tribes by the Romans.

The start of the clearance of the Scotch-Irish from their lands and ejection to the New World coincided with the termination of the Scottish mercenary tradition, the last vestage of which was the Galloglaich of Ireland. This decimation of Scotland's most economically valuable product from its land -- mercenaries -- led to the royal bankruptcies that gave Cromwell, in combination with Sephardic Dutch financing, the ability to deliver the final blow to Scotland's indigenous power to make war on England, the destruction of its genealogies and the creation of a landless mass of Protestant-indoctrinated messianists with which to expand trade routes on behalf of formerly Jews -- now, illegally, readmitted to the British Isles after hundreds of years of exile.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


This history is little understood (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 03:27:07 PM EST

At the very least, it sounds like there was more movement going on via sea that most folks commonly appreciate. One thing that DNA testing could help us sort out, is what is the reliability of various textual sources that deal with antiquity. I've seen some sources mention there was some kind of association between Ancient Britain and the Ancient Athenians. What it sounds like here is you are suspecting some kind of ancient trade/migration route. Now, that would fly in the face of folks like Jared Diamond that depict the inhabitants of Northwest Europe as a bunch of illiterate bumpkins that needed input from the Middle East to learn much of anything significant.

One bombshell I can imagine is that these types of genetic testing might cause the "true believers" to relate a bit differently to the various biblical stories. I've seen it suggested for example that in the story of David and Goliath, Goliath's tribe corresponds to the Hittites. How might someone that finds their genetic lineage was disproportiately related to the Hittites feel about that particular story after they learn a bit about their ancestry?

The point that I take of the orginal parent post: the various religious influences that have come out of the Middle East are a bit more complex than is traditionally appreciated. How might someone feel if they learn their ancestors were for example Zorastrians? I can see that might change the emphasis of religious study among a key population.

The detractor that said, "Mossad only knows", well, if I were a "true believer" in the cause of the Mossad, I really might be a bit concerned about something that might cause a significant shift in religous sympathies. The Nader lead left in America is not very pro-Israel any more. A lot of the folks that do support Israel do so out of relgious sympathy, thus for that particular country, stuff that has religious importance has an important factor in their national security.

Sounds like this whole alliance between fundamentalist Christians and Zionists has a rather fragile basis (i.e. the Bible may have no more historical legitimacy in key respects than fairy tales) that might be upset via disclosures that might come via genetic testing. For me, I want my facts unedited and undiluted.



[ Parent ]

Judaism vs Zoroastrianism Impact on Indig. Men (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 05:29:04 PM EST

I think the bottom line is not only the financial bottom line that I previously mentioned (an expert political weasel doesn't want their warriors demanding too much payment and will use every psychological trick in the book to get them identifying, tribally with the politician's dominion) but perhaps even more importantly genetic. This is the origin of universalist religions, Marxism/communism and political correctness ("We're all one big happy family OR ELSE."). There is an edifice that it teetering on the brink in Western civilization, and that is the edifice built on the mythic dominion of Judaism over local peoples with a variegated crytpo-theocracy. Particularly in the 20th century, crypto-religious movements of Freudianism, Boasian sociology and globalist immigration liberalization have supplanted what (perhaps little) remained, within Christianity, of Zoroastrianism's careful respect for local male fertility.

Zoroastrianism is unique among world domination religions not only because it may be the first, but because it was uniquely respectful of local traditions. In ancient times "having respect for local traditions" would have meant, first and foremost, having respect for local male fecundity. If you are going to send a priest-warrior caste into a territory and make sure you honor agreements regarding protection of indigenous male fertility, you might consider castrating your itinerant priest-warrior caste. Indeed, bothof the Phrygian mystery religions, such as Mithraism (male dominated) and the cult of Attis/Magna Mater (female dominated), have both celibacy and castration, respectively, as key attributes in their dispersion via the Roman empire. (And, of course, this Mithraic celibacy is a probable origin of celibacy among the Catholic clergy.)

In your posts Asian databases aren't as controversial as African and One big bombshell here you point to a possible connection between to northwestern Africa and Scotland via coastal migration routes. Let's consider carefully what this might mean in terms of the value of "Celtic" mercenaries put in the employ of Zoroastrians.

What if those "Celtic" mercenaries of Phrygia were actually of the PRE-Celtic tribes of the Atlantic coastal migration routes?

They would tend to be Rh- blood type, as are an outstanding percentage of present day Berbers, Basque and Scots and would, therefore, tend to produce daughters who would, themselves, produce problem pregnancies due to Rh incompatibility. In the case of sons, the negative impact on lineal fertility might be delayed a generation or so but ultimately there would be less impact on the indigenous populations into which the Phrygian's sent their "Celts". This isn't actual castration or strict celibacy, as practiced under the Zoroastrian-derived mystery religions of the Roman Empire, but it may have been part of a strategic deal cut between cultures that had hard-earned knowledge of human genetics deriving, in part, from slave trade and animal husbandry.

Note the profound difference between this treatment of local male fertility and the attitude projected by Jewish men in the following articles:

The Revenge of the Nebbish

GQ(Gentlemen's Quarterly)
The Revenge of the Nebbish
March 2002
Lucy Kaylin

The author discusses the movies The Heartbreak Kid, Meet The Parents, When Harry Met Sally, Splash, Annie Hall, and other Woody Allen flicks, etc...

Excerpts:

Nice Jewish boy bags snub-nosed cutie with combination of smarts and pluck that the bland Biffs could only dream about...So what in these movies is the appeal of the shiksa? Her looks, of course, which usually scream "Scandinavia!"...The shiksa is also seen to be wholly unencumbered by guilt, regret or deep thought. For tortured urban Jews mired in a gloomy legacy of pogroms and poverty, such a woman inspires condescension and admiration in equal measure...

...As such, film shiksas are commonly portrayed as simple, vacant vessels with sunny farm names like Annie, Kelly and Sally-ready repositories of ones hopes and dreams...Sex is the great motivator in these movies (surprise, surprise) in which shiksas are seen as something rich and valuable to be plundered...It's as if shtupping a WASP is the ultimate pay back for a cosmic, lifelong sense of feeling excluded...Perhaps, it is to be expected from an industry heavy on horny Jewish guys...and the nebbishes tend to be positioned as cocksman...

...Perhaps, the next wave of smart Jewish guys in Hollywood will explore some fresh thematic territory. Privileged as they are and removed as the are from straight-up immigrant desperation, maybe they'll see the shiksa quest for what it is: an antiquated, hollow attempt to get over.
 


The following is an excerpt from a dissertation in progress by a student whose identity will remain concealed.

Playing off the quiz show scandal, Roth inserts a scene into Portnoy's Complaint that portrays a more naked anti-Gentile animus than is shown in the film:

I was on the staff of the House subcommittee investigating the television scandals. . . . and then of course that extra bonus, Charlatan Van Doren.  Such character, such brains and breeding, that candor and schoolboyish charm--the ur-WASP, wouldn't you say?  And turns out he's a fake.  Well, what do you know about that, Gentile America?  Supergoy, a gonif!  Steals money.  Covets money.  Wants money, will do anything for it.  Goodness gracious me, almost as bad as Jews--you sanctimonious WASPs!
   Yes, I was one happy yiddel down there in Washington, a little Stern gang of my own, busily exploding Charlie's honor and integrity, while simultaneously becoming lover to that aristocratic Yankee beauty whose forebears arrived on these shores in the seventeenth century.  Phenomenon known as Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too.

. . .

While Hoffman succeeded in playing a classic Jewish role in Lenny, his first big role came in The Graduate (1967).  But is the existentially pained protagonist in The Graduate even Jewish?  Patricia Erens thinks not, since she fails to include this movie or any of its characters or themes in her exhaustive study The Jew in American Cinema.  On the other hand, Kathryn Bernheimer takes it for granted that Hoffman plays a "Jewish hero."  "Apathetic, ambivalent, and indecisive," his character finds that "Love is the (apparent) answer. . ."  In fact, Bernheimer compares Hoffman's character to that of Neil Klugman, the Jewish protagonist in the film adaptation of Philip Roth's Goodbye Columbus.  Desser and Friedman go even further, asking "Can anyone doubt that Dustin Hoffman's Ben Braddock . . . is Jewish, just as the sensibility behind the camera is equally Jewish?

   I believe that Hoffman's character in fact plays out one of the most pointedly Jewish dramas in modern film.  Though the movie uses WASP characters and settings throughout to mask the Jewish undercurrent, the final scene reveals the strong sense of estrangement from and hostility toward Gentile (read Christian) society, and highlights the Jewish man's longing for the "shiksa goddess."  Sleeping with both mother and daughter from an arch-WASP family, Hoffman's character Ben succeeds in carrying out a Jewish fantasy--literally "fucking" WASP women while "fucking over" their men (or, as Roth conceived it, "Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too").  

   This Jewish theme in general, and its specific renditions in The Graduate and Portnoy's Complaint, merit further attention.  Here, Roth serves as a useful source for some Jews' thinking on the desire of Jewish men for Gentile women:

Shikses!  In winter, when the polio germs are hibernating and I can bank upon surviving outside of an iron lung until the end of the school year, I ice-skate on the lake in Irvington Park. . . . I skate round and round in circles behind the shikses who live in Irvington. . . But the shikses, ah, the shikses are something else again.  Between the smell of damp sawdust and wet wool in the overheated boathouse, and the sight of their fresh cold blond hair spilling out of their kerchiefs and caps, I am ecstatic.  Amidst these flushed and giggling girls, I lace up my skates with weak, trembling fingers, and then out into the cold and after them I move, down the wooden gangplank on my toes and off onto the ice behind a fluttering covey of them--a nosegay of shikses, a garland of gentile girls.  I am so awed that I am in a state of desire beyond a hard-on.  My circumcised little dong is simply shriveled up with veneration. . . . How do they get so gorgeous, so healthy, so blond?  My contempt for what they believe in is more than neutralized by my adoration of the way they look, the way they move and laugh and speak--the lives they must lead behind those goyische curtains!  Maybe a pride of shikses is more like it . . .

   So: dusk on the frozen lake of a city park, skating behind the puffy red earmuffs and the fluttering yellow ringlet of a strange shikse teaches me the meaning of the word longing.  It is almost more than an angry thirteen-year-old little Jewish Momma's Boy can bear.  Forgive the luxuriating, but these are probably the most poignant hours of my life I'm talking about--I learn the meaning of the word longing, I learn the meaning of the word pang.  There go the darling things dashing up the embankment, clattering along the shoveled walk between the evergreens . . . I want Jane Powell too, God damn it!  And Corliss and Veronica.  I too want to be the boyfriend of Debbie Reynolds--it's the Eddie Fisher in me coming out, that's all, the longing in all us swarthy Jewboys for those bland blond exotics called shikses . . .


Then, in a telling confession to his psychiatrist, Portnoy reveals "What I'm saying, Doctor, is that I don't seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds--as though through fucking I will discover America.  Conquer American--maybe that's more like it."  And this is exactly what Ben Braddock and the Jewish "sensibility behind the camera" in The Graduate are doing.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Notes and unfortunate post-editorialising (3.00 / 4) (#112)
by Scrymarch on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 12:25:26 AM EST

This is a rambling mess of an article about a quite interesting topic; finding one's path through regional genetic history. It is personally a topic that intrigues me; I have a very Western European name and a somewhat meditarannean aspect. I'm not very sure where either came from. I voted +1FP.

Turns out this person with a keen interest in heredity holds some wacky and stupid opinions. Look no further than comment 111. (Was this number a mysterious reference to the mystical Zoroastrian powers of Lord Nelson? Only Mossad knows.) He's used the article as a springboard for wackiness. In retrospect, an unorthodox perspective on the genotype was clear in the original article; but I wrote it off as genealogical-nerd excessive focus.

This has provoked indignation amongst users; I can see how. But the article stands pretty much on its own merits, and the comments fall on their own merits. David Irving was an authority on the Third Reich, arguing from widely sampled and vetted sources, but he let his nazi-sympathy impede his scholarly judgement, and now he's a joke. Baldrson seems determined to undermine his own credibility. Pointing out he's a nigh-on-nazi helps us assess his credibility, but the article stands (alongside the later absurdities).

Oh yeah; shame the databases don't seem to include anything non-European. That could be properly intriguing. And people could do worse than consider hybrid vigour. I can't be bothered getting into an argument about this, though, if you reply, I won't.

One big bombshell here (5.00 / 3) (#115)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 02:06:25 AM EST

The current academic orthodoxy is that all major migrations into Europe came via the Middle East. Now, I'm just an amateur, but this sure seems like a lot of handwaving to me. There are other folks that claim that there were multiple migrations, including some that came up the west coast of Europe. A lot of the controversy here stems from the fact that there are well established religious traditions with a stake on both sides of this issue. A lot of devote Christians have the idea they are the literal descendents of the characters in the Bible. On the other hand, there are some non-Judeo Christian religious traditions in Africa that have stories about folks getting in boats and sailing North a long time ago.

Whenever, there is a major scientific debate that affects religious doctrine, controversy start erupting all over the place. Look at what happened with Charles Darwin. Look at what happened fairly recently with the discovery of the Kennewick man.

When the non-European databases start to come on line, you'll start seeing things like specific groups in Europe getting related in various ways with people in North Africa and the Middle east that are speaking very different languages and have very different cultures than they do. There are a lot of layers of "illusions of relatedness" that have been created by various governments over time to hold various countries together. For example, in France, the government there has promoted French as a language, deliberately imposing it on populations that spoke things like Breton and Basque-like languages(Aquitaine was according to some scholars similar to Basque).

Genetic testing of the type Bowery is talking about may have the potential to shatter some of these illusions-which makes that kind of testing inherently threatening to people that like things the way they are now(I put the bulk of both Christians and PC types in that category). What we are seeing already, is that a lot of serious scholars of Welsh culture are for example realizing that original culture of the British Isles may have spoken a language similar to Basque-which means that there is now more study going on in that direction.

If the non-European databases come on line, we may see folks doing things like tracing their ancestry to groups in North Africa that still have a degree of tribal identity. Africa is a much more diverse place than most folks realize. There is for example, a population of red-bearded people in Northwest Africa that some scholars think may be related to modern day Scots-this kind of genetic testing could tell us a lot more here. Genetic testing could tell us if these folks are related to modern day Scots-and which direction the migration came from(i.e. are the Scots the product of a migration north or these Berbers a product of a migration south).

I'm not sure what is going to really come out of all of this, but I suspect it will be different and in some ways for more unpredictable that can be anticipated. Now, my own bias is that I find change interesting and exciting-I'm kind of looking forward to it all.



[ Parent ]

Reply :) ... mix (none / 0) (#123)
by Scrymarch on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 01:37:44 PM EST

I'm not sure what is going to really come out of all of this, but I suspect it will be different and in some ways for more unpredictable that can be anticipated. Now, my own bias is that I find change interesting and exciting-I'm kind of looking forward to it all.

Cool information, which appeals to me on two levels: I never knew there were red-bearded Africans, and it tends towards my own preconceptions. Two things people are very good at are wandering around and screwing around. I suspect a lot - a majority? - of people have genes from all over the place. Like you, I think finding out is going to be exciting.

[ Parent ]

Three Things People Are Very Good At (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 03:09:55 PM EST

Two things people are very good at are wandering around and screwing around.

You left off the third:

Expelling if not killing obnoxious men who wander into their territory.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

There Was An Asian Database (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 01:19:41 PM EST

Oh yeah; shame the databases don't seem to include anything non-European.

There was an Asian database that I, in fact used to find the one individual in Asia who matched my Y haplotypes: A Syrian.

This was mentioned in the introductory text and the link to Asian database provided, and mentioned again, in the body of the article.

As for hybrid vigor -- that wasn't the primary topic but your presumption that it hasn't been considered is way off the mark: See at my prior messages on addressing hybrid vigor on kuro5hin. The most specific is one titled Puebreeding vs Crossbreeding. There is also this message that I just posted in response to nomoreh1b titled: Coefficient of Kinship vs Coefficient of Relation.

As for the rest of your response, there isn't anything of substance.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Asian databases aren't as controversial as African (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 03:06:44 PM EST

As you pointed out to me earlier, most human genetic diversity is in Africa. A friend of mine who is an archaelogist says the frequently things like language/cultural traditions remain most intact
at the original start of a major migration
at the end of a major migration

One thing that I've read, if we go back a few thousand years, a much larger portion of humanity was physically resident in North African than today-some authors claim that when the Sahara was still fertile, most most of humanity resided in North Africa. Still, in terms of thing like archaelogy, the only part of North Africa that gets much in the way of serious study is Egypt. That seems related in large part to the prominent role Egypt plays in the Bible. People get read about things like Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt and develop and interest in that area later on in life. Well, there is a lot more to North Africa than Egypt. Egypt is in large part the most intensively studied place, but there is interesting stuff all over that whole region that is poorly understood int he west.

One scholar pointed out to me that the Boar plays a prominent role in the heraldry throughout Northwest Africa--and is also found in prominently in very old drawings in Northwest Africa. Now, by itself, this doesn't mean much, but if you tie it in with genetic evidence of a migration, then it becomes a lot more interesting. Another data point here, there are tribes in Northwest Africa that have a high incidence of the Rh- blood type--and this also exists in Scotland and Ireland. Again, by itself, this doesn't mean much. Now, the one major bombshell that has already come out is the tie between the Welsh and the Basque peoples. The next logical expension here may be to tie the Welsh and Basque into the Berbers-at this point we're get a lot more information.

Now, there has been a thread of scholarship pointing this direction for a while. The newest example is at Institute for Meta-History. Other examples here include the writins of Lewis Spence and Donnnelly. Thor Heyerdahl(of Kon Tiki fame) made some suggesetions here in some of his writings. This general area of scholarship has had some historical political importance(Spence founded the political party in Scotland that succesfully lobbied for the Scottish Parliament), but it really falls in the area of being "cranky" according to the stardards of modern academe. But, then, so did the idea of plate tectonics at one point. What would it mean if in some small way, these various "nutcases" were more right than orthodox academe?

Personally, I think this is the kind of thing that could fuel an intense shift in religous identity away from an emphasis on the Judeo-Christian tradition-and possibly towards existing tribal societies. Contemporary neo-paganism has been a significant religious movement in recent years, but has in large part been divorced from a focus on traditions that have a lot of continuity (that tradition in America is a religion of diverse converts). In fact, just like conventional academe, there has been a lot of empahasis in the pagan community on researching things like Middle Eastern ancient pagan traditions, it just isn't clear that for many of us interested in who or what our ancestors were, this is the right place to be looking



[ Parent ]

111 (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by Baldrson on Tue Mar 26, 2002 at 04:18:45 PM EST

Look no further than comment 111. (Was this number a mysterious reference to the mystical Zoroastrian powers of Lord Nelson? Only Mossad knows.)

No, actually, it was a reference to this.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Improving the methodology described here (4.33 / 3) (#118)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 06:08:54 AM EST

Baldrson tested his own Y-Chromosome and mitochondrial DNA . One next step here might be to test his father's mitochondrial DNA and his mother's father's Y-chromosomal DNA. This would give information on lines that contributed to his ancestry that couldn't be tested otherwise(if you wanted to be truly rigorous here, you could do paternity tests to make sure the information was more ironclad).

Now, essentially what would be doing with this methodology is increasing the sample size of ancestors from your distant past about which you know something. I haven't worked out the math here, but at some point, the sample becomes statistically valid(I guess I'll have to dig out my old statistics textbook at some point here).

Another measurement here that might be interesting: The overall degree to which ones genetic makeup is composed of homozygous genes vs heterozygous genes. I'd expect such tests to be developed for purposes of animal breeding. There is a lot of value in knowing if the characteristics of a given individual are related to hybrid vigor or to an unusual recessive found in a homozygous form(at one point I made a living raising purebred livestock-this was stuff I learned from professionals in that field).

I'm not suggesting that such tests should be used in doing things like selecting sperm donors in humans(though I expect someone will try that sooner or later-the same kind of folks that pay $100,000 for the right designer egg). Still, if one knows whether ones personal genetic makeup appears to come from a small genetic base vs a large genetic base, this might be useful in genealogical investigations for determining how large a sample size one needed to have to information about ones distant ancestors. The odds of an individual with lots of genes in their homozygous form emerging from a group with a large genetic basis is a lot less than one coming out of a group with a small genetic base. Again, this is one where the math needs to be done here-I'm not sure how much advantage this would give here-and if it would be worth the bother.

I'm one of those folks with a degree of diversity in my background if one is to believe my genealogy. Now, the real ultimate question is how much of ones genetic makeup has come from various ancestors and what communities these ancestors were from. That sounds like a much tougher problem to me-and might require a database genetic fingerprints of a variety of communities. At that point you might be able to say how likely it would be for a given individual to emerge in particular communities (or how likely it might be for a particular chromosome of a particular individual to be from a particular community that existed in antiquity). I think what folks would really want here is to be able to say given that they've done tests from relatives, what portion of their genetic makeup falls outside the realm of the communities for which they have mitochondrial or Y-chromosomal tests--or what portion of their genetic makeup comes from identifiable communities. That sounds like a hard goal to me, but I'm not ready to say it is impossible.



F Statistics and Ethnic Nepotism (3.50 / 2) (#120)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 10:25:13 AM EST

Still, if one knows whether ones personal genetic makeup appears to come from a small genetic base vs a large genetic base, this might be useful in genealogical investigations for determining how large a sample size one needed to have to information about ones distant ancestors. The odds of an individual with lots of genes in their homozygous form emerging from a group with a large genetic basis is a lot less than one coming out of a group with a small genetic base. Again, this is one where the math needs to be done here-I'm not sure how much advantage this would give here-and if it would be worth the bother.

I sent you an email about the F statistics math and its significance a few months ago.

It was a request from someone who was under the mistaken impression that I was a professor (of which I did disabuse him) wanting someone anyone to review Harpending's 1979 derivation of an equivalence precisely for its relevance to ethnic nepotism. Go back and dig it out of your email archives. The key phrase is "ethnic nepotism".

> Dear Prof. Bowery,

> I'm having difficulty finding scholars able or willing to evaluate Prof. Harpending's method for converting Fst measures to kinship coefficient, f, and would greatly appreciate your comments.

> I am researching the implications of Pierre van den Berghe's theory of ethnic nepotism, for which I need f measures between populations, not the Fst measures provided in Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s (1994) global genetic assay.

> A 1979 paper by Prof. Henry Harpending (harpend@xmission.com) of the University of Utah's Department of Anthropology offers a formula for interpreting interpopulational kinship coefficients from Fst measures.

> I would greatly appreciate it if you could look over this formula and its derivation, and give me your opinion: Is it right or wrong? If wrong, is it significantly so?

...

Dear Dr. ----,

Thank you for forwarding the very interesting metric and for the confidence you place in my competence to review Harpending's formula, however I have to clear up a misconception:

The honorifics of "Dr." and "Professor" do not apply to me. I am not credentialed. "Mr." suffices.

That having been said, I will look at the formulae and see if I can understand them. If I can, then I will share this interested amateur's opinion with you and Dr. Harpending.

Sincerely,

Jim Bowery

Dear Mr. Bowery,

Well, you write like a professor . . .

Hopefully you don't think like one. I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to induce professionals in population genetics to critique Henry Harpending's analysis.

Sincerely,

----

Dear Mr. Bowery,

Thanks you very much. You're the first person to take the trouble to look at this closely.

I'm passing your comments onto Henry Harpending in case he wants to respond.

Sincerely,

----

Dear Dr. ----,

The derivation is incomplete. I was able to verify to my satisfaction (with caveats in some wording described in my response below) that Fx = Fst. I did not see the how to go from the fact that Fx = Fst to the statement that kinship 'fo' is therefore Fst + (1-Fst)[-1/(2N-1)]

> The paper in question is:

> H. Harpending, 1979, 'The population genetics of interactions', American Naturalist, 113, pp. 622-30.

> Harpending concludes that two random individuals within a population have a coefficient of kinship fo of:

> fo = Fst + (1-Fst)[-1/(2N-1)]

> where N is the effective population size, and Fst is the genetic distance within the metapopulation.

> Sample application. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) find that the English-Danish Fst is 0.0021. Since N is large, Harpending's formula interprets this Fst measure as meaning that two random Englishmen (or two random Danes) have a kinship of 0.0021, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENGLISH-DANISH METAPOPULATION.

> Prof. Harpending has been good enough to express his proof in an e-mail-friendly form, which follows:

> > For a proof that Fst kinship is the right measure here is something.

> > My equation one says that my kinship with x is this: give that a random gamete of mine has the gene Gi, the probability that person x's random gamete has Gi is

> > pi,x = pi(1-Fx) + Fx

> > where Fx is my kinship with x, pi is the population frequency of i, and pi,x is the frequency of Gi in x's gametes.

.. > In a subdivided population Wahlund's rule says that the frequency of homozygotes is just

> pi^2 + piqiFst

Yes. This is supported by:

http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/Bio4181/handouts/Wahlund%20Effect%20notes.pdf

Which says:

Freq(AA)=p^2+pqFst Freq(Aa)= 2pq(1-Fst) Freq(aa)=q^2+pqFst

Although both AA and aa are homozygotes, that factor of 2 cancels out heterozygous genotype Aa which has the factor of 2 applied to pq(1-Fst) (because in addition to genotype Aa there is genotype aA which is counted as Aa) -- so the factors of 2 cancel and we're left with p^2+pqFst

> where pi^2 is pi squared and qi is 1 -pi. This is also the probability that two random gametes from within a population both have i.

Better wording?: "This is also the probability that both gametes forming a zygote have Gi."

> Now _given_ that a random gamete from a person is Gi, the frequency of Gi in gametes from someone from the same population is (pi^2 +piqiFst)/pi by Bayes rule.

Yes. The application of Bayes' rule checks out.

Bayes' rule:

Probability of consequent GIVEN an antecedant
=P(consequent|antecedant)
=P(antecedant|consequent)*P(consequent)/P(antecedant)

P(consequent)
= P(both gametes forming a zygote have Gi)
=pi^2 + piqiFst

P(antecedant)
=P(a gamete forming a zygote has Gi)
=pi
Probability that both gametes forming a zygote have Gi GIVEN a gamete forming a zygote has Gi
=P(both gametes forming a zygote have Gi|a gamete forming a zygote has Gi)
=P(a gamete forming a zygote has Gi|both gametes forming a zygote have Gi)*P(both gametes forming a zygote have Gi)/P(a gamete forming a zygote has Gi)
=P(a gamete forming a zygote has Gi|both gametes forming a zygote have Gi)*(pi^2 + piqiFst)/pi

AND

P(a gamete forming a zygote has Gi|both gametes forming a zygote have Gi)
=Probability that a gamete forming a zygote has Gi GIVEN both gametes forming a zygote have Gi
=1

THEREFORE

P(both gametes forming a zygote have Gi|a gamete forming a zygote has Gi)
=1*(pi^2 + piqiFst)/pi
=(pi^2 + piqiFst)/pi

QED

> When we do the division we have the conditional frequency in someone from the same population is

> pi + qiFst

Obviously.

> and set this equal to pi,x in my equation 1 above

Yes, we can do this because "give(n) that a random gamete of mine has the gene Gi, the probability that person x's random gamete has Gi" was the definition of equation 1, and that can be translated into: "Probability that both gametes forming a zygote have Gi GIVEN a gamete forming a zygote has Gi" which was the proposition from which we derived the Bayesian form of Wahlund's rule.

> pi(1-Fx) + Fx = pi + qi Fst

> and get Fx = Fst.

Yes. Here's the algebra in detail:

pi(1-Fx) + Fx = pi+(1-pi)*Fst ; substituting qi=1-pi
pi-pi*Fx+Fx = pi+Fst-pi*Fst ; distributing Fst
-pi*Fx+Fx = Fst-pi*Fst ; subtracting pi
(-pi+1)*Fx=(1-pi)*Fst ; collecting Fx and Fst
(1-pi)*Fx=(1-pi)*Fst ; additive commutivity
Fx=Fst ; subtracting (1-pi)

QED

Sincerely,

Jim Bowery

(From Dr. Harpending)

Dear --- and Jim:

I will try and remember some of this stuff: it has been a few years!

> >The derivation is incomplete. I was able to verify to my satisfaction (with caveats in some wording described in my response below) that Fx = Fst. I did not see the how to go from the fact that Fx = Fst to the statement that kinship 'fo' is therefore Fst + (1-Fst)[-1/(2N-1)]

Back then there was a lot of interest in David Sloan Wilson's model in which there is selection for altruism in completely random small groups, so an exact "treatment" was necessary. As I recall it goes something like this. I am in a small group, and I have one copy of Gi. Therefore the frequency of Gi in the rest of the genes, including my other one, is (Ni-1)/(2N-1) where Ni is the number of Gi genes in the group and 2N is the size of the group.

If we use this formula

pi,x = pi(1-Fx) + Fx

to get

Fx= (pi,x - pi)/(1-pi)

and substitute

pi,x = (Ni - 1)/(2N - 1)
pi = Ni/2N

we get that -1/(2N-1) term.

I can't remember how the Fst fits in to this formula, but I don't have that old paper in front of me.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Coefficient of Kinship vs Coefficient of Relation (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by Baldrson on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 12:29:24 PM EST

In my response to Harpending's formulae, there was a point where I mistakenly read "coefficient of kinship" to mean the same thing as Hamilton's "r" which stands for "coefficient of relationship". He pointed out that these are not the same thing -- that coefficient of kinship between two heterozygous clones is generally 1/2 -- whereas their coefficient of relationship will be 1. Hence in general the coefficient of kinship is 1/2 the coefficient of relationship. However, if you take an evolutionarily isolated population -- particularly one that undergoes periodic population bottlenecks such as the Soay sheep in their native islands off Scotland or some rural human populations, the population will tend to be homozygous.

The importance for studies of the sociobiology of altruism here are potentially significant since we can see up to a factor of 2 difference in the evolutionary pressure toward "kin" altruism in populations where there are high levels of inbreeding.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~botany/bot567x_materials/Lec05%20Folder/Lec05%20-%20Pop%20subdivision .pdf

As I have previously suggested, it is quite plausible that a people who frequently undergo environmentally imposed genetic bottlenecks would evolve an evolutionary strategy in which certain genotypes are selected to be allowed through the bottleneck. This is fairly straight-foward kin-selection -- particularly taken to the extremely homozygous populations likely to exist under such frequent environmental bottlenecks. This may explain the origin of "inbred nobility" that pervades societies as diverse as Egypt and the Vanir-worshiping cults of brother-sister incest (Frey and Freya) of ancient north western Europe. This also creates a vulnerability in that these homozygous purebred lineages may not have the hybrid vigor to, themselves, stave off infiltration of their inner social circles by individuals from foreign demes who displace those of indigenous hybrid vigor from their positions of authority within their societies -- thus giving rise to the deadly embrace of court Jews and their indigenous inbred nobles with all the history that entails.

To see the importance of this sort of meta selection to the predictions given by Hamilton's rule, we can revert to the classic application of that rule to maternal altruism:

A mother has two children. One is sick and the other is well. The mother sees she can't keep them both alive and must focus all her maternal energy on the other -- perhaps even sacrificing herself in the process.

What is the qualitative difference between that and the homozygousity-producing bottleneck of which I spoke which would prevent Hamilton's rule from applying to the bottleneck?

Hamilton's rule is:

rB-C > 0

where
r = coefficient of relatedness
B = benefit of a behavior to those so related
C = cost of the behavior to the individual exhibiting it

Its application in the mother/children situation is:

child1=healthy child
child2=sickly child
r(child1)==r(child2)
B(child1)>0

Because the sickly child will most likely not reproduce and may, indeed, take critical resources from the healthy child: B(child2)<0 <p> and if the mother is at the end of her reproductive life (not an unreasonable assumption given an environment where large numbers of individuals are dying or failing to reproduce) then:

C=0

Clearly the allele is selected for under Hamilton's rule.

In the original hypothesis, we have a consanguineous group that goes under repeated bottlenecks and although each individual has a smaller coefficient of relatedness to the members of the community that may make it through the bottleneck and not all nuclear families in the community are precisely equal to one another in degree of relatedness to all others, it is clear that only a few nuclear families are going to make it through. Which individuals does the community allow on the "lifeboat"?

PS: The homozygosity is an environmental constraint imposed by the hypothesized bottlenecking process -- an environmental constraint that imposes selective pressures on kin altruistic behavior during the bottlenecks. For example: How much does each such bottleneck increase the homozygosity of the population? What signals might exist to convey the absence of deleterious recessives in an individual -- since that will increase the B of Hamilton's rule?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

OT: stop spamming (2.00 / 4) (#136)
by fhotg on Sun Mar 10, 2002 at 10:03:48 PM EST

be believe you can add and substract without you posting your mbox.

[ Parent ]
The Y Chromosome and Personal Genetic Archaeology | 143 comments (125 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!