brknkybrd

Just curious, I was inspred by this article on the BBC, where they show a small portion of a genetic tree diagram, and then don't tell me where I can find the whole picture (grrr).

So, I am a Canadian, but my greatgrandparents (father's side) were from England, near London. I believe my mother's family was also from England, and I know that everyone in my immediate family is/was a white anglo-saxon. My girlfriend is Korean, and she has Korean ancestry as far back as she can trace.

Roughly when and where would I have to look to find our common ancestor? Would I have to go all the way back to the place in Africa where all humans came from, or might I find something a little later than that?

__________________
Normal is overrated.

shakran

you'd probably have to go back sometime close to the discovery of fire.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to be related to your girlfriend?

vinaur

Judging from the map on this site and assuming that there was no mixing of culture at any point in either families, you would probably find same, or similar, ancestors at around 90,000 years ago. I think I have a better map at home somewhere, so I'll look at it when I get home.

__________________
If you multiply that by infinity and take it to the depths of forever, you will, perhaps, get just a glimpse of what I am talking about. --Meet Joe Black--

Janey

It may not be so far -fetched. If you can trace community interaction via linguistic evolution, you may find at least a societal link. the Korean language belongs to the Ural-altaic grouping. This relates it to the Finns, who may have mixed with vikings, and everybody knows that the Dane-Law controlled half of Britain for a long time (giving us surnames such as Wilson or almost anything with -son on the end).

think of your descendants (if you two procreate). They are going to hav a very broad family tree/heritage, and a fresh strong genetic composition.

BadNick

Don't Hungarians get put into that group too? I'm not sure, I'm asking.

But if so, maybe that's why I like Kimchi so much

trickyy

here's a page with the related research. perhaps you can find some more information.
http://popgen.biol.ucl.ac.uk/publications.html

the story is from 2001, so perhaps #35 is the specific paper (although it does not have the chart in the story). but to answer your question you may have to do some more poking around, perhaps in #63 or its references. kind of interesting stuff regardless.

Janey

Actually I may have been hasty in my post. Ural-altaic is not really considered to be a bonifide language grouping. Actually Uralic and altaic are considered to be part of a super group of Eurasion langauges (Nostratic). And yes, Hungarian by virtue of the mongols (Huns) is a member of this group

jorgelito

So is this implying that race is NOT socially constructed and that people ARE different (racially) after all?

If we are genetically different, does that mean it's ok to put people into categories instead of the "politically correct", "we're all the same".

raveneye

There are definitely genetic differences among the "races". Obviously there are physical differences, and these have a genetic basis.

But that doesn't imply that "races" are biologically real. There are probably genetic differences between any two groups of people you want to define. E.g. between English and Irish, or between French and German, Italian and Greek. That in no way implies that these are all different races.

jaco

a race is anything far enough genetically different from another group, so yes race is real and proven for many years. Then again, we can still all breed with one another so it doesnt really matter all too much.

__________________
"How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore"
"Thou art god"

jorgelito

Hmmm...I think I get what you mean but it's still a bit confusing.

Back in my day, in school we learned there were three main races: negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid. Then they added a 4th: australoid.

In college, we learned that theory was wrong and that race is essentially a social construct based on phenotypes. I was in shock and all my stereotypes were shattered. But it made sense. I felt better.

Now I wonder, what's the significance of 'race'? What does it mean if Catalans and Welsh share an ancestral gene code. Don't we all? If there is an appreciable difference, does that mean it can be quantifiable? If it's quantifiable, does that imply value? Which then value implies some are better than others? The BBC article troubled me. It seems divisive.

I wonder about blood types - It would make more sense to categorize people based on blood type than skin color or other arbitrary features. If i get donor blood or transfusion from a black guy, does that make me a blood brother or part black too now? Will I have rhythm (cause it's in the blood)? What if I get blood from an Asian? Will my dick shrink and I will be good at math and can't drive? I'm not trying to be offensive, rather I am really pondering the notion and "science/biology" of race. It seems to matter so much in our society. If the answer is no to any of the above, then stereotyping is simply wrong, not based on fact or partially right, but simply wrong.

But then there are certain genetic affects particular to "racial" groups. Tay-Sachs for Jews (who aren't a race), sickle-cell for black Americans, near-sighted ness for Asian Americans, so what gives?

Raveneye, I appreciate your answer but it only created more questions. If there are genetic, that is biological differences, then why isn't race biologically real? It seems to be contradictory to me.

jaco, if race is real how are we able to "interbreed"? Or how is race proven? Does it even matter? Societal behavior would seem to indicate so. Are we not all fruit from the same tree or different trees in the same grove?

passthru

First, I know next to nothing about genetics or anything like that.. But I always think of race like other species of animals and plants. Dogs are very different in build and coloring, but they can breed. Two different types of flowers can be bred also. But they're still dogs and flowers. So I look at it and think there are just small tiny differences here and there but we're all almost identical. Think about how much of a human's DNA has to be different to make that person look different. Probably a ridiculously small amount. Also, think about how much difference there would have to be to have a different shaped nose or different color skin compared to the difference between somebody with a slender build and somebody with a muscular build. I'd bet the two differences are close.

vinaur

The argument that one race is in any way better than the other is absolutelly bogus. It's like saying that people in Canada are better than people in
Mexico because they dress warmer. With its distinct characteristics, every race is much better adapted to its environment than any other race, after all, it lived there for thousands of years. Thus the discrimination can easily be turned around.

__________________
If you multiply that by infinity and take it to the depths of forever, you will, perhaps, get just a glimpse of what I am talking about. --Meet Joe Black--

Janey

that means we are all of the same species, just different breeds within the species...

Jorgelito your post here:

jaco, if race is real how are we able to "interbreed"? Or how is race proven? Does it even matter? Societal behavior would seem to indicate so. Are we not all fruit from the same tree or different trees in the same grove?

is explained above.

oh, I neither require glasses, or have a hubby witha small dick. i also have an impeccable driving record... crash go the stereotypes.

Janey

...
come on! Do you really need a reason? we just are better. period.

jorgelito

Aha! but then there is a difference between "race" and nationality no?

jaco

Aye, I thought I was clear with what was said but maybe not. I am saying that race is just a group that is of similar genetic build as opposed to another group. It's the same as breeding dogs, I believe it takes 5 generations of controlled breeding to create a new recognized breed of dog. It's the same with humans, we are different. even though it's very non-PC to say such things, but then again politically correct people believe whatever they are told. I dont see how you folks are arguing with what i said

__________________
"How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore"
"Thou art god"

jorgelito

I'm not arguing, I'm trying to get a clarification of what you are saying. It has nothing to do with PC or non-PC.

So, if we are different, biologically and genetically, then stereotypes are in fact true and a reasonable descriptive and categorization of human variation. You say race is proven, can you provide a link or source please?

To follow the dog example you provided, if we breed black and white after 5 generations do we have a new race? Also, this call into question the notion of equality. Racial profiling could be justified.

What is the significance of our differences? Is it measureable? Appreciable?

jaco

I'm going to have to use your own words i suppose.

that is called genetic proof. Besides for that, use your eyes, we are different. If you can't see our differences then I can't help you.

If you wish to equate humans to the same standard that dogs are set to, then yes, you could breed a new race in approximately 70 years. I won't go into an argument over genetic superiority since that is a big no-no. The real problem with "racial profiling" or measuring our differences is that even amongst the more well known races there is far too much of an influx of different genes *through breeding with other races and natural or unnatural genetic mutation* to ever define what is specific to that race. So in the end, thanks to nature and our tendency to breed with whatever we can, there can never be a set definition to races. well.... unless we involve human meddling, but thats a whole different discussion.

The thing i would like to see to get rid of or finally show the light of stereotypes is that we would get together a set number of peoples from each and every race/class and put them through every possible scientific test... of course, thats never going to happen because of the truth it might show or the bullshit it may dismiss, who knows. Its far too late at night for me to be thinking about this.

as a side note, i would really like to know who creates these so called bogus stereotypes so i can tell him some lies to tell about me.

__________________
"How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore"
"Thou art god"

jorgelito

So it appears that the differences are not significant nor appreciably measureable.

By the way, I do have eyes, I do see "differences". I was seeking clarification on your part. The example I used is very narrow. Not all Jews are pre-disposed to Tay-Sachs and not all blacks are pre-disposed for diabetes, sickle-cell.

I used the dog example because you brought it up and I thought that would be a useful convergence point to further the discussion.

I would be interested in hearing your theories on genetic superiority. Why is it a big no-no? This issue has been studied in the past and as far as I know, been mainly dismissed which is why we no longer study it in school. But if you have nw insight, I would love to hear it.

So, the main point comes down to "differences". If indeed the differences are "so great", then it definitely calls into question our notion of equality. That is my question I guess. Are the differences significant enough? If not, then the whole notion of race is just silly and stupid. If so, we need to rework the concepts of equality accordingly.

I agree racial profiling is problematic but for different reasons. It simply doesn't work and is ineffective.

Your ideas on stereotypes are interesting: testing - I wonder if it hasn't been done already to some degree.

I also wonder who creates the stereotypes. The conventional wisdom is that "all sterotypes are grounded in fact". I have no idea where the source of this came from. Probably out of fear. Incidentally, what "lies" would you tell this guy?

jorgelito

Hey Jaco,

This site might be interesting to you. When you have time, check it out and let me know what you think. http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

It is indeed a little late to be thinking about this. I'm hitting the z's. Talk to you later.

jaco

That website has a very skewed view of what constitutes races as only what has become the common definition. It deals mostly with dismissing the ideas that we are different and why slavery is wrong. Then again, it is a PBS website. Its funny how its very PC to say there is no such thing as race but then demand that a certain percentage of workers at a job not be white. Every person i know believes in race though, no matter what his own.

As to equality, I dont think race has anything to do with it besides slightly effecting the direction of your genetic makeup which is the true balancing point. a simple example is that a certain race has a genetic predisposition to be tall. As we all know, it pays to be bigger in many situations from job progression to a common fight. This race, even though it may have its short people will be considered better than a race that is exactly the same in every way but has a genetic predisposition to being short. Simple, but it calls into account how much your genetics will effect your behavior as well, which is a big sticking point these days. If we can think of intellegence and facial structure as being part of your genetics, does it also effect your sexual preference or criminal activity? *not that im trying to associate the two* There have been many studies on this but i think we are still a little short on the understanding of the way that our genes work to figure this out for a decade or two.

As to truely measurable genetic superiority *without my testing of all peoples idea*, we won't see that for a while yet. Science has a few more hurdles to pass * a lot more red tape and people who are appalled at the idea of playing with god's plan to overcome* but through science or perhaps even natural mutation we will hopefully see something that has not happened in many years, human evolution.

As to common day racial profiling, even if you knew that every guy that was coming to kill the president is going to be a latino midget with turrets. The one guy you stop and question about it that fills the profile but isnt a guilty party would cause an uproar. I almost blame media and racial coalitions for all the bullshit we have to deal with when common sense is overrun.

I'm going to have to search around a bit but i remember some drug research that was done and abandoned because while the drug worked beneficially on white people and i think asians, it did nothing or just gave side effects to a number of other races tested with it. I'll try to find it and post a link here some time.

I don't think stereotyping has anything to do with fear, unless you have an innate fear of a black man having a larger penis than you? A stereotype still works even if its not a majority of the given people that will fall into it. If you have a choice of one thousand objects to a thousand people and say a single one was picked a hundred times more than any other object, it still doesnt mean its a large percentage but definately a recognizable one.

The lies I would tell about myself? well, i would make them damned interesting enough to ensure my genetic line for many years to come.

__________________
"How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore"
"Thou art god"

raveneye

On the "race" issue (mainly in response to jorgelito): there are many separate questions being asked here, and I'll try to answer a few briefly.

First, every two people are genetically different, even within any so-called "race". If real, demonstrable genetic differences (sometimes with medical implications) are enough to define two people as separate races, then everybody is a different race. That's because everybody is genetically unique (except for identical twins), and that uniqueness is expressed in all sorts of fundamental ways (intelligence, creativity, disease susceptibility, etc.).

Second is the idea that we can use certain phenotypic differences as "badges" that indicate something fundamentally different about a person (this is logically separate from the idea of "race" but is usually bundled up in the "race" idea when applied to humans). Research in human genetics has shown that the phenotypic differences that are commonly used to define the "races" are trivial, based on a few genes whose only consequence is to very slightly change the way people look. Because our brains have modules that are very sophisticated in detecting and remembering small differences among peoples faces, it doesn't take more than one or two genes to cause changes in people's appearance that are objectively tiny but psychologically very large (to the human observer).

Certainly there are some necessary biochemical consequences of some of these differences. For example, people with a high skin melanin content are at a little more risk for folic acid deficiency (because folic acid is made from the same precursor as melanin). But that says nothing about "race". People with red hair are at more risk from skin cancer, but that doesn't mean red-haired people are a different "race".

Third, there is no biological barrier to reproduction among the "races". They can share all their trivial differences ad infinitum. It's all one big gene pool, and everybody is equally able to participate in it. The only barriers are purely social or psychological.

questone

If you can trace community interaction via linguistic evolution, you may find at least a societal link.

1010011010

Race is a meaningless classification because the genetic differences between two members of the same race can be greater than the differences between members of different races. The division between races is essentially arbitrary, IOW... it tells you nothing more about the person in the class than the features used to make the classification.

And the closest genetic relation you could have with your Korean girlfriend would be a child.

closest ancestor could be a lot more recent than 90kya, though, since there was a fair bit of, ah, gene flow between the populations of Europe and the Far East during the 14th and 15th centuries when trading was being established. I don't know the extent that Korea was involved, but if she has ancestry in China or Japan there's a pretty good chance.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

jorgelito

Ok guys, I appreciate your patience here.

Let me try to sum:

Skin color, instead of being a "racial" characteristic, is more simply a variation among the human race. So, race in effect, is a false notion (beyond the psychological) and is essentially meaningless.

Because stereotypes are often grounded in "racial terms" I wanted to explore the topic to see if I could dispel or confirm so-called racial values. Jaco's response is the one I typically hear and it "sounds" somewhat reasonable. Given the input from Raveneye and 1010011010, then one could NOT assume that Asians are smart, blacks are athletically gifted, Latinos are prone to crime, etc...etc..

So who's right? Raveneye? Jaco? I don't think PBS is biased in fact, it is usually pretty well-informed (as far as I can tell).

As far as stereotypes borne out of fear? Quite simple: The black man is a bogeyman and archetype for crime. The steroetypes asscociated with black males exacerbated by the media etc contribute to a culture of fear of black men (where did you get the penis thing, LOL?) Bush sr. campaign featuring Willie Horton is one example. Same with how merchants are automatically more suspicious of black in their stores. blah,blah etc,etc..

Look at right now. Our country is in hysterics over the "fear of Muslims and Arabs" or anything that looks like one. My Indian roomate is like: WTF?, I am not Arab nor Muslim but people harrass him and call him Osama and stupid shit. Where was the round-up of white,males with shaved heads after Oklahoma? Or Atlanta?

And here irony for you: My hardcore right-wing Israeli friend has a "Persian-sounding" last name. He is ALWAYS singled out of line at the airport and has red circles on his boarding pass. He always gets mad for being treated like an "Arab" (I don't think he sees the irony). I would say most certainly stereotypes are borne out of fear. Not just physical fear but economics too. Look at them Jews, calculating with their hook noses and weird ways. When people feel threatened, they respond by "scapegoating" or whatever. We don't stereotype the countless illegal Irish and English nannies that come here nor do we freak out over the Russian ones. But suddenly, we are under attack from the south by a flood of Mexicans etc. We need someone to blame or fear, we choose someone that's different.

Either way, stereotyping is just wrong.

In your racial profiling scenario, I would agree. Because it;s a spceific description. But generally, racial profiling is defined as randomly stopping people for no other reason than the color of their skin. If someone robbed a bank and the APB was for a black male then yes, obviously you would pursue that. But racial profiling is when you see a bunch of blak kids or Latino kids and you stop them for no reason etc. or pull someone over because they're black.