National Geographic Society is launching a 5-year study to understand the human journey and map humanity's genetic journey through the ages.

For $99.95 USD, you can submit a sample of your DNA and find out where you came from and how you got to where you are today.


From the website:
Here's a link to the website: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/index.html

I'm considering it. Would you submit a sample of your DNA to find out where you came from?

I'm going to order one for me and my son and then talk one of my two brothers into getting one. That way I'll have both my parents lineages and my son will have both. (Men get Y chromosome analysis and women get mitchondrial DNA analysis.) But after one generation you start getting half again. Hmmm, as I think about it one only gets a fraction of the trail.

I'm also not sure if waiting will help. Once they get more data they can tell you more. I wonder if they do all the analysis at once and add interpretations or if somewhere along the way they will add something to what they are checking and not go back to check any completed analysis.

What does anyone know about whether or not waiting will matter?

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Could bring to light a few family scandals - I'm all for it.

By the way , this sort of thing proves that if you take the long view, all Americans are Afro-Americans.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Already known, been discussed before. There is only one race, human. Our surface features are just fluff, not substance.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Wouldn't it be more correct to say we are one species, that has several bundled characteristics that we define as race? There are genetic differences between the races; they are not just cultural. I could see us disgarding the term "race" because of the negative connotations that go with it, but then we'll just come up with a different term to label the differences. I guess what I'm saying is that the differences are there, and wil not go away just because we deny the term used to categorize them.

As far as the mapping goes, that is very cool stuff. I will probably end up doing it, though the $100 seems a bit high. Maybe wait a couple years for the price to drop.

Anybody esle out there reading, or already read, Genome. Fascinating stuff.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I would absolutely send in a DNA sample, I think it is a very neat project. I have to think about the $100.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

It's a neat idea. I'm thinking about doing it.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I knew someone would question this resolved via genetic research issue. And I tried last night to find the thread rather than rehash it, but failed. I shall look again.

There is only one race and while we differ from each other, there are no single group of genetic markers which identify a race. There are blonds and brunettes and dark and light skin and lip and eye shapes that differ. But so are there blood types and height and weight differences. Because a few of these differences are more obvious than others, or seem to identify a group we have arbitrarily assigned them as true categories of humans. It isn't a matter of being PC, it's a matter of genetics. Cultural groups are the ones that do exist, biological groups do not.

Look at a different example and it may become more clear. You could just as easily define race by blood type. But what would you find? You'd find that all human blood types are found around the world, mixed in families, mixed in tribes, mixed in countries and mixed on continents. Why? Because no groups in the human race have undergone isolation and sufficient time to actually branch off from one another. Our genes have remained equally mixed among all peoples, literally.

A mutation that occurs is passed down one line of humans, but not to all offspring in a group. There are mutations belonging to genetic lines. That is what this national geographic research is going to look at. That is what they already looked at in the research done identifying migration routes out of Africa. But a single mutation does not define a race. All humans on the planet differ from each other by about 0.1% of our genetic makeup, or approximately 3 million base pairs out of 3 billion in the human genome. And each differs from every other human by the same amount whether you take two people from the same village, different villages, from different countries, or from different continents. Whether we have different skin color and facial features and body types or not, there is an equal distribution of genetic material in all of us.

The amount of genetic material that is responsible for what looks like race is not only extremely small, it is equally dispersed among people that do not have the same appearance, and, that material is not consistent among people who do have the same appearance. There are single genetic markers that are more prevalent in some groups. For example, sickle cell trait is more common in groups that live in areas or came from those areas after the genetic mutation occurred, but not every person from there has the mutation. So while you find sickle cell trait more often in people of more recent African descent, not everyone recently descended from Africa has sickle cell trait. Actually we are all from African descent, just some more recently than others.

What's true about sickle cell trait is true for every genetic marker with the exception of genetic markers that were present in all ancestors of any group that migrated out of Africa and subsequently established an isolated tribe. In addition, though, that genetic mutation would have had to have occurred in route or later and have been passed on to all offspring. Genetic markers that had existed before migrating would have been passed on by humans that did not migrate with the group. So to get a genetic "race" one would have to have some genetic material, that originated after migration and was passed on to all offspring. That's doesn't happen unless you have isolation and a very long time, for slow reproducers anyway. The faster you reproduce, the faster you can get a new race which is why there are many species of birds in the Galapagos that are not on other land masses, but Hawaiians are not a different human species (or race).

Even after 40,000 years of isolation, the Australian Aboriginals did not have sufficient time to become a distinct race. Though, that group may be closer to being a separate race than any other group, they still do not have genetics sufficiently different from the rest of the humans on the planet so as to be identifiable by any genetic sequences. Any genetic sequences Australian Aboriginals have in common with each other are not unique to them. Any sequences unique to them, (there are some as they would be mutations that occurred after the group migrated away from their African ancestors), are not present in every member and no group of such mutations exist that could be said to be an identification of race. The genetic changes responsible for outward appearance are just too few and inconsistent.

But we do have cultural and ethnic groups. We do have people that look alike. But just as being blond or having type A- blood is not a race, neither is being of a certain skin color or body type.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Very interesting. So what is this thing we call race then?

I understand from what you said that it is definitely not the same as, or a subset of being a species; but then what is it?

Is it just a bundle of physical characteristics that are more or less likely to show up based on the parents genes? But that gets right back to being based on genetics.

So if we say we are going to categorize people by skin color, and skin color is determined by genes, and we are going to name these categories races - don't we have races?

I guess I'm confused by the fact that skin color is a physical characteristic determined by genetic ancestry, yet you seem to be saying that race is not something that can be defined by physical characteristics.

Gonna have to think on it more later - better get some work done.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

A distinction that isn't based on the human genome, but rather one based on cultural and ethnic groupings. It really comes down to an understanding of our genes vs. what we look like. You have genes in common with all those people you don't look like and they with you. They are a group of people who have some apparent physical features in common, but the genes behind those features of appearance are too few and too inconsistent to identify the group. It's hard to believe because we attribute so much value to the visible differences, but genetically we are overvaluing select features. They have a lot of cultural, ethnic and social features unique to their group. That is the real difference.

Genetics, yes, significant, consistent, identifiable groups of genetics, no.

If I looked for the single gene or group of genes that determined that skin color, I would not find it. There is a mix of genes, you have some, I have some, and various groups with various skin colors have different combinations among themselves. Think of it as family lines but not race lines. Imagine your kids are all blonds. Does that make them a different race from your brother's kids who all inherited brunette hair from your sister-in-law? No, because you all have so many genes still in common. The fact the kids look like their siblings but nothing like their cousins isn't enough to make them a different race.

It is hard to understand. The more I explain it, it gets easier to understand. But I had to ask all the same questions you are asking.

The best way I can explain it is with the blood type example. Why don't we consider blood type as defining race? Why not height? How about eye color? We are all a mix of those. Hard as it might be to understand or believe, we are also all a mix of the genes that give us what appear to be racial divides. All humans originated in Africa where we migrated from. Over thousands of years, those that moved north developed lighter and lighter skin. Then as we migrated back down the American continent, again over thousands of years, dark skin again developed near the equatorial zones. But during that time, no human groups were isolated from other human groups long enough to actually achieve a genetically distinct character.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Part of my understanding of this is, that the definition of a race is social, rather than biological, is that the US/European definitions of race (white, black, yellow, etc.) are not universal across the human race. In some cultures and groups other physical characteristics, other than skin color, are the defining characteristics.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

How do you know that this is not just a clever ruse to use NG to grate a DNA data base on every one?

How do you know that samples will not be turned over to the government or law enforcement officials

Big Brother is Watching You

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

Because it would be illegal?

__________________
Join the Illuminati

I guess someone had to come up with a word that could be used to define common geographical, cultural and historical groups of people.

In any event, lines between different nationalities are becoming more and more blurred as we become more of a global culture.

Sounds kind of neat, yet I too am curious how over time the information might "evolve". Unfortunately I don't have a hundred clams burning a hole in my pocket just now.



So is spying on your own citizens...despite the fact that according to the Attorney General, we've had electronic surveillance on citizens since the Lincoln administration.

Bskeptical, me thinks you protest too much

"All humans on the planet differ from each other by about 0.1% of our genetic makeup, or approximately 3 million base pairs out of 3 billion in the human genome. And each differs from every other human by the same amount whether you take two people from the same village, different villages, from different countries, or from different continents."

I don’t think this is true, that “each differs from every other human by the same amount.” Identical twins, for instance, differ considerably less than the human average—by something approaching zero. Parents, children and siblings differ considerably less than the human average. And I would think this kinship effect would spread out into larger groups—even very large groups.

Ethnic groups are identified, in part, by a commonalty of certain inherited and easily observable characteristics. In other words, it is a group selected for having a subset of similarly arranged base pairs. This group will differ less than the human average. The same would be true if you selected people with HDL cholesterol greater than 50, or all of blood type O.

These groups have been pre-selected for having some similar base pair arrangement, If differences in the rest of the base pair arrangements are randomly distributed within the two populations, individuals in the selected population with have average differences less than the non-selected group. It’s like playing with a fixed deck—of course you’ll get more aces (similarities). You put the extra aces (similarities) in there.

It also seems to me that the inherited, easily observed characteristics are important and very useful indicators of many other genetic similarities. Scandinavian susceptibility to MS, Blacks to sickle cell anemia, Pimas to diabetics, Ashkenazi Jews to Tay-Sachs, and on and on. Such ethnic related diseases are very common.

In fine, I suspect the truth is that two people living in the same village, sharing ancestors from only a few generations back, are probably more genetically similar than two people living on different continents and sharing common ancestors from 30,000 years ago. Those genetic similarities give rise to similar outward appearance, a subset of similar disease risks, and other similar genetically determined phenomena.

But, really, it’s OK for people to be different. It makes the world more fun.

Bob

I think it goes too far the other way to point out that there is no defined COLLECTION of genetic traits that make up "race." and call that the end of the argument. I am quite sute you could not unequivocally say that sample X is a negro or whatever, but that does not mean that humans are homogeneous.

Populations have differing genetic makeup, and some are more closely related than others. Forget the idea of race. But the flow of genetic variance around the world can be tracked. We can find out that the indiginous folks from one part of the world are more closely related to those in some second place than they aer to those in a third. I know culturally my forebears came from western Europe as opposed to southern europe or africa or Kamchatka or Ceylon. Even if all of those might be "caucasians."

Rather than scream "Oh God it's the race thing again," we might look to see what this effort just might show us about ourselves.

A salutory lesson from the UK


All those DNA samples given to NG, would be awfully tempting for a government agency not try and get hold of it.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

__________________
Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.