First I would like to say hello to all list members and introduce myself since this is my first post to the list.
I am a dentist with specialty training in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. I live in Southern California in the city of Torrance, in an area know as the South Bay. I have been involved in some research that relates to human facial (and overall) attractiveness and how it influences behavior, social interaction and overall health.
Please forgive me if my first post is not in line with what is usually discussed here in your list or if the scientific nature is not of the proper degree of complexity. My knowledge of Genetics is basic at best and this is the reason I came here to seek insight and feedback from those who know more and can provide me with some guidance.
A while ago I remember attending a lecture by a knowledgeable geneticist who explained the biological and genetic basis for the fact that the mixture of races is beneficial from a genetic standpoint as it tends to favor offsprings increasing their chances of survival.
If my memory serves me right, the explanation had something to do with the fact that genes responsible for causing many different diseases tend sometimes to be race-specific, having evolved in specific parts of the planet through the process of evolution and affecting the population restricted to that area. The closer your mating partner is to you (genetically speaking), the more likely it is that you both had a common ancestor from which the gene derived and the greater the possibility of both manifesting the gene which is a requirement for many diseases (dominant versus recessive genetic diseases).
This genetic premise explains the fact that the more races are mixed with one another, the more these genes become diluted and less likely to manifest themselves from a statistical point of view. This in turn leads to a "stronger" race as the product of the mixture of individuals with different racial characteristics.
Is this the right explanation for this phenomenon? What can you share with me about this process ? Are there any other factors that would cause offsprings from interracial mating to be superior from a genetic standpoint in what survival and adaptability are concerned?
What would be a good text to find and read the explanation for this phenomenon and would it be described in detail ? In case a text is not available, is there a web site where I could find detailed biological information on the genetic bases or fundamentals behind this phenomenon ?
Any help you can offer me will be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. wrote: > This genetic premise explains the fact that the more races are mixed with > one another, the more these genes become diluted and less likely to manifest > themselves from a statistical point of view. This in turn leads to > a "stronger" race as the product of the mixture of individuals with > different racial characteristics.
The usual rule in biology is to choose a mate who is like you, but not /too/ much like you.
Dangers of too much inbreeding include the problems you mentioned.
Dangers of too much outbreeding include half breeds, mule effects and incompatible gene complexes - effects which have most likely contributed to the stigma historically associated with such unions - e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
<Moderator, how do I remove my email address from the heading?>
[moderator's note: that's really up to you; if you're not familiar with anonymizing, or at least munging, your address in a posted article, I suggest you read the documentation for your newsreader. If you're using google groups, however, I suppose I'd be willing to edit that address for you (this is to avoid spam, yes? It's probably too late for that, I fear, but if you want me to change your email addy for you I can do that.) - JAH]
You are suggesting that the mixing of people from different human groups will create a hybrid vigour that would be beneficial to mankind as a whole. Although see your point (and partly agree), there are other hypothesis that logically have to be considered. 1) Outbreeding will hide recessive genes that are harmful, encouraging their spread through the population, and so ironically increase their overall occurance. 2) Inbreeding following the outbreeding will cause Mendelian segregation, separating valuable combinations of traits that once acted together in a beneficial manner. I got number two from a rather old biology textbook. From: Edward East and Donald Jones, "Inbreeding and Outbreeding," Philadelphia and London (1917) page 253. Quote: "The real effect of such a wide racial cross, therefore, is to break apart those compatible physical and mental qualities which have established a smoothly operating whole in each race by hundreds of generations of natural selection."
What East and Jones say is that the combination of statistical variations expressed by each race are obviously optimized for the environment that produced them. Even assumming each group is superior in their original environment, the process of mixing will cause Mendelian segregation (i.e., separation of the genes into separate lineages). Separating traits may destroy the winning combinations, to the detriment of each future individual in those same environments. The rest of the chapter is explicitly white supremist. However, these issues need clear arguments to counter them. I'll start: 1) Some of those recessive genes may be beneficial in future environments (outer space?). Therefore, hiding recessive traits for use in future environments may be beneficial. 2) "Today's environments are very different from that of our ancestors in the days where these "races" developed. New combinations of traits are needed for new environments." 3) Most of the important stuff in our lives are cultural, with a very small hereditary component. The East and Jones book, written before the days of political correctness, is otherwise a pretty good biology book on the breeding of plants and animals (based on strictly Mendelian genetics). The portion that I quoted is on the chapter on eugenics, "Intermingling of Races and Stamina."
> First I would like to say hello to all list members and introduce > myself since this is my first post to the list.
> I am a dentist with specialty training in Oral and Maxillofacial > Surgery. I live in Southern California in the city of Torrance, in an > area know as the South Bay. I have been involved in some research that > relates to human facial (and overall) attractiveness and how it > influences behavior, social interaction and overall health.
> Please forgive me if my first post is not in line with what is usually > discussed here in your list or if the scientific nature is not of the > proper degree of complexity. My knowledge of Genetics is basic at best > and this is the reason I came here to seek insight and feedback from > those who know more and can provide me with some guidance.
> A while ago I remember attending a lecture by a knowledgeable > geneticist who explained the biological and genetic basis for the fact > that the mixture of races is beneficial from a genetic standpoint as > it tends to favor offsprings increasing their chances of survival.
> If my memory serves me right, the explanation had something to do with > the fact that genes responsible for causing many different diseases > tend sometimes to be race-specific, having evolved in specific parts > of the planet through the process of evolution and affecting the > population restricted to that area. The closer your mating partner is > to you (genetically speaking), the more likely it is that you both had > a common ancestor from which the gene derived and the greater the > possibility of both manifesting the gene which is a requirement for > many diseases (dominant versus recessive genetic diseases).
You need to start by getting the concepts straight (and I may not be the best explainer). To simplify somewhat, a gene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a specific protein - hemoglobin, for example. In a population, there may be several different variants of the gene - these are called alleles. Since humans (along with most other sexually reproducing species) have two chromosomes, each with a copy of the gene, in many cases a person will have two different alleles for a gene. If one of the two is defective for some reason, the other one in many cases is sufficient and the person is perfectly normal. But if two people mate and both have one defective allele for a given gene, the odds are that one fourth of their children will get two defective alleles (one from each parent) and will have a "genetic disease".
Now if you are closely related to your mating partner, and if a mutation causing an allele to be defective occurred in a common ancestor, then it is more likely that both partners will have one copy of the defective allele. But note that in order to avoid this problem of "genetic disease" you don't have to mate with someone of a different race, only with someone not closely related.
It may have beenthat the lecturer was referring specifically to sickle- cell anemia, in which case it would be beneficial for people of sub- Saharan African descent to mate with people not from that area, at least as long as they will not be exposed to malaria. I won't go into the details, but look up sickle-cell anemia and you will find plenty of information.
> This genetic premise explains the fact that the more races are mixed > with one another, the more these genes become diluted and less likely > to manifest themselves from a statistical point of view. This in turn > leads to a "stronger" race as the product of the mixture of > individuals with different racial characteristics.
As Tim noted in another follow, the situation is more complicated than this.
> What would be a good text to find and read the explanation for this > phenomenon and would it be described in detail ? In case a text is not > available, is there a web site where I could find detailed biological > information on the genetic bases or fundamentals behind this > phenomenon ?
There are many books about genetics that would help. I am going to suggest Matt Ridley's "Genome". It is not specific to your question, but it is very readable, covers many of the aspects of genetics relevant to the question, and has a good list of references for further reading.
> You need to start by getting the concepts straight (and I may not be the > best explainer). To simplify somewhat, a gene is a stretch of DNA that > codes for a specific protein - hemoglobin, for example.
JE:- One coding gene almost always codes for just one polypeptide (just a small amino acid polymer). Hemoglobin is not composed of just one tiny polypeptide coded by just the one gene, it has four PROTEIN subunits (minimally four genes at four different loci):
Even the one same protein polymer (which is mostly produced by the stitching together of two or more polypeptides) can have MORE than just one active domain:
genes always were and remain so today, _entirely prohibited_ from being selectable at the DNA/RNA level of selection. The only level they can possibly be selected at is the polypeptide (phenotype) level (which the DNA/RNA genotype level _irreversibly_ codes for).
2) Because almost all proteins are composed of more than just one tiny polypeptide in isolation it remains true that almost all single genes have an epistatic fitness (a fitness which is non additive per coded polypeptide per protein).
Heuristic gene centric models of selection have been illegally allowed to replace the theory they were oversimplified from allowing oversimplified (fatally incorrect) models of gene selection to replace Darwinian fertile organism centric theory: e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
What needs to be made perfectly clear is that race within gene centric evolutionary theory is based on a _massive_ oversimplification: individual genes heuristically assumed to have a simple additive fitness per gene per genome (which none of them empirically possess). Not one single additive gene fitness has ever been documented within nature (no matter how you define fitness). I include meiotic drive genes in this statement. If anybody disagrees then would they PLEASE provide their reference re: empirically documented additive gene fitnesses.
> In a population, > there may be several different variants of the gene - these are called > alleles. Since humans (along with most other sexually reproducing > species) have two chromosomes, each with a copy of the gene, in many > cases a person will have two different alleles for a gene.
JE:- Yes, but it is never the case that one locus codes for just one protein in a fitness independent way (selectively independent to all other loci in the same genome).
A valid minimal model (a model which is not just fatally oversimplified) MUST assume that at least _two loci_ form the one, same, epistatic fitness. It is this model that remains ignored simply because if became the gene centric basic model, Neo Darwinism as we know it would have to be discarded as a non empirically based artifact of history, e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
In over 5 years posting these _basic_ facts and these simple inferences from them neither have been refuted (just chronically evaded).
drosen0...@yahoo.com wrote: > <Moderator, how do I remove my email address from the heading?>
> [moderator's note: that's really up to you; if you're not familiar > with anonymizing, or at least munging, your address in a posted > article, I suggest you read the documentation for your newsreader. > If you're using google groups, however, I suppose I'd be willing to > edit that address for you (this is to avoid spam, yes? It's probably > too late for that, I fear, but if you want me to change your email > addy for you I can do that.) - JAH]
> You are suggesting that the mixing of people from different > human groups will create a hybrid vigour that would be beneficial to > mankind as a whole. Although see your point (and partly agree), there > are other hypothesis that logically have to be considered. > 1) Outbreeding will hide recessive genes that are harmful, encouraging > their spread through the population, and so ironically increase their > overall occurance. > 2) Inbreeding following the outbreeding will cause Mendelian > segregation, separating valuable combinations of traits that once acted > together in a beneficial manner. > I got number two from a rather old biology textbook. From: > Edward East and Donald Jones, "Inbreeding and Outbreeding," > Philadelphia and London (1917) page 253. Quote: > "The real effect of such a wide racial cross, therefore, is to break > apart those compatible physical and mental qualities which have > established a smoothly operating whole in each race by hundreds of > generations of natural selection."
> What East and Jones say is that the combination of statistical > variations expressed by each race are obviously optimized for the > environment that produced them. Even assumming each group is superior > in their original environment, the process of mixing will cause > Mendelian segregation (i.e., separation of the genes into separate > lineages). Separating traits may destroy the winning combinations, to > the detriment of each future individual in those same environments. > The rest of the chapter is explicitly white supremist. However, > these issues need clear arguments to counter them. I'll start: > 1) Some of those recessive genes may be beneficial in future > environments (outer space?). Therefore, hiding recessive traits for use > in future environments may be beneficial. > 2) "Today's environments are very different from that of our ancestors > in the days where these "races" developed. New combinations of traits > are needed for new environments." > 3) Most of the important stuff in our lives are cultural, with a very > small hereditary component. > The East and Jones book, written before the days of political > correctness, is otherwise a pretty good biology book on the breeding of > plants and animals (based on strictly Mendelian genetics). The portion > that I quoted is on the chapter on eugenics, "Intermingling of Races > and Stamina."
You state, "The East and Jones book, written before the days of political correctness, is otherwise a pretty good biology book on the breeding of plants and animals (based on strictly Mendelian genetics). The portion that I quoted is on the chapter on eugenics, "Intermingling of Races and Stamina." Of course this is true. But back when East and Jones wrote their book it was politically correct. So what determines what is and isn't politically correct? Is it based on what is scientifically valid? My answer would be not necessarily so.
drosen0...@yahoo.com wrote: > <Moderator, how do I remove my email address from the heading?>
> [moderator's note: that's really up to you; if you're not familiar > with anonymizing, or at least munging, your address in a posted > article, I suggest you read the documentation for your newsreader. > If you're using google groups, however, I suppose I'd be willing to > edit that address for you (this is to avoid spam, yes? It's probably > too late for that, I fear, but if you want me to change your email > addy for you I can do that.) - JAH] drosen0...@yahoo.com wrote: > <Moderator, how do I remove my email address from the heading?>
Ragland: Why do you want to remove your address from the heading? Do you believe it or are entertaining the idea it is a genetic disadvantage to engage in "Medelian segregation" or legally miscegenation among humans. These arguments don't require a "counter" because they are based on psuedo science.such as "Inbreeding following the outbreeding will cause Mendelian segregation, separating valuable combinations of traits that once acted together in a beneficial manner." And, "The real effect of such a wide racial cross, therefore, is to break apart those compatible physical and mental qualities which have established a smoothly operating whole in each race by hundreds of generations of natural selection." You sum up, "What East and Jones say is that the combination of statistical variations expressed by each race are obviously optimized for the environment that produced them. Even assumming each group is superior in their original environment, the process of mixing will cause Mendelian segregation (i.e., separation of the genes into separate lineages). Separating traits may destroy the winning combinations, to the detriment of each future individual in those same environments." All of what I've quoted above is 20th Century pseudo race science.
You state, : 1) Some of those recessive genes may be beneficial in future environments (outer space?). Therefore, hiding recessive traits for use in future environments may be beneficial. 2) "Today's environments are very different from that of our ancestors in the days where these "races" developed. New combinations of traits are needed for new environments." 3) Most of the important stuff in our lives are cultural, with a very
> small hereditary component.
Yes, today's environment is very different from our ancestors. East and Jones might have disagreed most of the important stuff in our lives is cultural, with very little small hereditary component. Are new combinations of traits needed for new environments? Personally, I think genetic engineering will ultimately answer this and not Darwinian evolution.
>> You need to start by getting the concepts straight (and I may not be the >> best explainer). To simplify somewhat, a gene is a stretch of DNA that >> codes for a specific protein - hemoglobin, for example.
> JE:- > One coding gene almost always codes for just one polypeptide (just a small > amino acid polymer). Hemoglobin is not composed of just one tiny > polypeptide > coded by just the one gene, it has four PROTEIN subunits (minimally four > genes at four different loci):
> Even the one same protein polymer (which is mostly produced by the > stitching > together of two or more polypeptides) can have MORE than just one active > domain:
> genes always were and remain so today, _entirely prohibited_ from being > selectable at the DNA/RNA level of selection. The only level they can > possibly be selected at is the polypeptide (phenotype) level (which the > DNA/RNA genotype level _irreversibly_ codes for).
> 2) Because almost all proteins are composed of more than just one tiny > polypeptide in isolation it remains true that almost all single genes have > an epistatic fitness (a fitness which is non additive per coded > polypeptide > per protein).
> Heuristic gene centric models of selection have been illegally allowed to > replace the theory they were oversimplified from allowing oversimplified > (fatally incorrect) models of gene selection to replace Darwinian fertile > organism centric theory: e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
> What needs to be made perfectly clear is that race within gene centric > evolutionary theory is based on a _massive_ oversimplification: individual > genes heuristically assumed to have a simple additive fitness per gene per > genome (which none of them empirically possess). Not one single additive > gene fitness has ever been documented within nature (no matter how you > define fitness). I include meiotic drive genes in this statement. If > anybody > disagrees then would they PLEASE provide their reference re: empirically > documented additive gene fitnesses.
>> In a population, >> there may be several different variants of the gene - these are called >> alleles. Since humans (along with most other sexually reproducing >> species) have two chromosomes, each with a copy of the gene, in many >> cases a person will have two different alleles for a gene.
> JE:- > Yes, but it is never the case that one locus codes for just one protein in > a > fitness independent way (selectively independent to all other loci in the > same genome).
> A valid minimal model (a model which is not just fatally oversimplified) > MUST assume that at least _two loci_ form the one, same, epistatic > fitness. > It is this model that remains ignored simply because if became the gene > centric basic model, Neo Darwinism as we know it would have to be > discarded > as a non empirically based artifact of history, e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
> In over 5 years posting these _basic_ facts and these simple inferences > from > them neither have been refuted (just chronically evaded).
I have never disagreed with your stance that upholds the indispensable importance of the epistaticness of fitness (how fit functures/phenotypes can be individually and heritably fit).
(I would never have forgiven myself had I ever written (like so many ignorant journalists have): "...gene for [this or that]...". ;-\
On the other hand, what I will never agree with is your unrealistic stance and/or unreasonably inelastic philosophical ('EPT insight blocking') fixation on "fertile fitnesses".
Tim Tyler wrote: > Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. wrote:
> > This genetic premise explains the fact that the more races are mixed with > > one another, the more these genes become diluted and less likely to manifest > > themselves from a statistical point of view. This in turn leads to > > a "stronger" race as the product of the mixture of individuals with > > different racial characteristics.
> The usual rule in biology is to choose a mate who is like you, > but not /too/ much like you.
> Dangers of too much inbreeding include the problems you mentioned.
> Dangers of too much outbreeding include half breeds, mule effects > and incompatible gene complexes - effects which have most likely > contributed to the stigma historically associated with such > unions - e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation > -- > __________ > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
I doubt you would have stated this without researching it first. As far as human engaging in interracial mating I think everyone is aware of the term "half-breed". I'm also aware at times throughout history "half-breeds" have had a hard social time being accepted and fitting in. I'm not aware of human "half-breeds" having mule like effects and incompatible gene complexes. Can you provide evidence of signifigant mule effects and incompatible gene complexes among humans who interracially mate? In short, evidence biological abnormalities are more prevalent in this special population than the average population.
> > First I would like to say hello to all list members and introduce > > myself since this is my first post to the list.
> > I am a dentist with specialty training in Oral and Maxillofacial > > Surgery. I live in Southern California in the city of Torrance, in an > > area know as the South Bay. I have been involved in some research that > > relates to human facial (and overall) attractiveness and how it > > influences behavior, social interaction and overall health.
> > Please forgive me if my first post is not in line with what is usually > > discussed here in your list or if the scientific nature is not of the > > proper degree of complexity. My knowledge of Genetics is basic at best > > and this is the reason I came here to seek insight and feedback from > > those who know more and can provide me with some guidance.
> > A while ago I remember attending a lecture by a knowledgeable > > geneticist who explained the biological and genetic basis for the fact > > that the mixture of races is beneficial from a genetic standpoint as > > it tends to favor offsprings increasing their chances of survival.
> > If my memory serves me right, the explanation had something to do with > > the fact that genes responsible for causing many different diseases > > tend sometimes to be race-specific, having evolved in specific parts > > of the planet through the process of evolution and affecting the > > population restricted to that area. The closer your mating partner is > > to you (genetically speaking), the more likely it is that you both had > > a common ancestor from which the gene derived and the greater the > > possibility of both manifesting the gene which is a requirement for > > many diseases (dominant versus recessive genetic diseases).
> You need to start by getting the concepts straight (and I may not be the > best explainer). To simplify somewhat, a gene is a stretch of DNA that > codes for a specific protein - hemoglobin, for example. In a population, > there may be several different variants of the gene - these are called > alleles. Since humans (along with most other sexually reproducing > species) have two chromosomes, each with a copy of the gene, in many > cases a person will have two different alleles for a gene. If one of the > two is defective for some reason, the other one in many cases is > sufficient and the person is perfectly normal. But if two people mate and > both have one defective allele for a given gene, the odds are that one > fourth of their children will get two defective alleles (one from each > parent) and will have a "genetic disease".
> Now if you are closely related to your mating partner, and if a mutation > causing an allele to be defective occurred in a common ancestor, then it > is more likely that both partners will have one copy of the defective > allele. But note that in order to avoid this problem of "genetic > disease" you don't have to mate with someone of a different race, only > with someone not closely related.
> It may have beenthat the lecturer was referring specifically to sickle- > cell anemia, in which case it would be beneficial for people of sub- > Saharan African descent to mate with people not from that area, at least > as long as they will not be exposed to malaria. I won't go into the > details, but look up sickle-cell anemia and you will find plenty of > information.
> > This genetic premise explains the fact that the more races are mixed > > with one another, the more these genes become diluted and less likely > > to manifest themselves from a statistical point of view. This in turn > > leads to a "stronger" race as the product of the mixture of > > individuals with different racial characteristics.
> As Tim noted in another follow, the situation is more complicated than > this.
> > What would be a good text to find and read the explanation for this > > phenomenon and would it be described in detail ? In case a text is not > > available, is there a web site where I could find detailed biological > > information on the genetic bases or fundamentals behind this > > phenomenon ?
> There are many books about genetics that would help. I am going to > suggest Matt Ridley's "Genome". It is not specific to your question, but > it is very readable, covers many of the aspects of genetics relevant to > the question, and has a good list of references for further reading.
> Yours,
> Bill Morse Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. wrote: > This genetic premise explains the fact that the more races are mixed with > one another, the more these genes become diluted and less likely to manifest > themselves from a statistical point of view. This in turn leads to > a "stronger" race as the product of the mixture of individuals with > different racial characteristics.
The usual rule in biology is to choose a mate who is like you, but not /too/ much like you.
Dangers of too much inbreeding include the problems you mentioned.
Dangers of too much outbreeding include half breeds, mule effects and incompatible gene complexes - effects which have most likely contributed to the stigma historically associated with such unions - e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
drosen
You are suggesting that the mixing of people from different human groups will create a hybrid vigour that would be beneficial to mankind as a whole. Although see your point (and partly agree), there are other hypothesis that logically have to be considered. 1) Outbreeding will hide recessive genes that are harmful, encouraging their spread through the population, and so ironically increase their overall occurance. 2) Inbreeding following the outbreeding will cause Mendelian segregation, separating valuable combinations of traits that once acted
together in a beneficial manner. I got number two from a rather old biology textbook. From: Edward East and Donald Jones, "Inbreeding and Outbreeding," Philadelphia and London (1917) page 253. Quote: "The real effect of such a wide racial cross, therefore, is to break apart those compatible physical and mental qualities which have established a smoothly operating whole in each race by hundreds of generations of natural selection." What East and Jones say is that the combination of statistical variations expressed by each race are obviously optimized for the environment that produced them. Even assuming each group is superior in their original environment, the process of mixing will cause Mendelian segregation (i.e., separation of the genes into separate lineages). Separating traits may destroy the winning combinations, to the detriment of each future individual in those same environments
> > snip< > > JE:- > > Yes, but it is never the case that one locus codes for just one protein > in > > a > > fitness independent way (selectively independent to all other loci in > the > > same genome).
> > A valid minimal model (a model which is not just fatally oversimplified) > > MUST assume that at least _two loci_ form the one, same, epistatic > > fitness. > > It is this model that remains ignored simply because if became the gene > > centric basic model, Neo Darwinism as we know it would have to be > > discarded > > as a non empirically based artifact of history, e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
> > In over 5 years posting these _basic_ facts and these simple inferences > > from > > them neither have been refuted (just chronically evaded). > I have never disagreed with your stance that upholds the indispensable > importance of the epistaticness of fitness (how fit functures/phenotypes > can > be individually and heritably fit). > (I would never have forgiven myself had I ever written (like so many > ignorant journalists have): "...gene for [this or that]...". ;-\
JE:- What is important is to identify as exactly as possible the source and then CORRECT the epistemological root of the misuse this model oversimplification: gene centric Neo Darwinism.
> On the other hand, what I will never agree with is your unrealistic stance > and/or unreasonably inelastic philosophical ('EPT insight blocking') > fixation on "fertile fitnesses".
RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote: > Tim Tyler wrote: >> The usual rule in biology is to choose a mate who is like you, >> but not /too/ much like you.
>> Dangers of too much inbreeding include the problems you mentioned.
>> Dangers of too much outbreeding include half breeds, mule effects >> and incompatible gene complexes - effects which have most likely >> contributed to the stigma historically associated with such >> unions - e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
> I doubt you would have stated this without researching it first. As far > as human engaging in interracial mating I think everyone is aware of > the term "half-breed". I'm also aware at times throughout history > "half-breeds" have had a hard social time being accepted and fitting > in. I'm not aware of human "half-breeds" having mule like effects and > incompatible gene complexes. Can you provide evidence of signifigant > mule effects and incompatible gene complexes among humans who > interracially mate? In short, evidence biological abnormalities are > more prevalent in this special population than the average population.
An example of the other side of the coin to hybrid vigor in humans:
``And there is a downside to intermarriage.
The obverse of hybrid vigor: the possibility that combining genes which didn't evolve to work together might cause health problems due to incompatibilities.
For example, ace genetics reporter Nicholas Wade wrote in the New York Times ( 11/11/05) about a gene variant that is benign in whites and Asians but more than triples the heart attack risk in part-white African-Americans:
"Dr. Stefansson [of Iceland's DeCode Genetics] said he believed that the more active version of this gene might have risen to prominence in Europeans and Asians because it conferred extra protection against infectious disease.
"Along with the protection would have come a higher risk of heart attack because plaques that build up in the walls of the arteries could become inflamed and rupture. But because the active version of the gene started to be favored long ago, Europeans and Asians have had time to develop genetic changes that offset the extra risk of heart attack.
"The active version of the inflammatory gene would have passed from Europeans into African-Americans only a few generations ago, too short a time for development of genes that protect against heart attack, Dr. Stefansson suggested."
[Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine]
Like hybrid vigor, genetic incompatibilities across racial lines unquestionably exist in some cases. So the key empirical question is: what the net balance of the two opposing forces?''
My guess is that one of the parental fears behind the common disapproval of interracial marriages, is the concern that any offspring will not fit well into either family's social group - due to not being perceived as being a full relative as a result of differing racial markers. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Tim Tyler wrote: > RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote: > > Tim Tyler wrote:
> >> The usual rule in biology is to choose a mate who is like you, > >> but not /too/ much like you.
> >> Dangers of too much inbreeding include the problems you mentioned.
> >> Dangers of too much outbreeding include half breeds, mule effects > >> and incompatible gene complexes - effects which have most likely > >> contributed to the stigma historically associated with such > >> unions - e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
> > I doubt you would have stated this without researching it first. As far > > as human engaging in interracial mating I think everyone is aware of > > the term "half-breed". I'm also aware at times throughout history > > "half-breeds" have had a hard social time being accepted and fitting > > in. I'm not aware of human "half-breeds" having mule like effects and > > incompatible gene complexes. Can you provide evidence of signifigant > > mule effects and incompatible gene complexes among humans who > > interracially mate? In short, evidence biological abnormalities are > > more prevalent in this special population than the average population.
> An example of the other side of the coin to hybrid vigor > in humans:
> ``And there is a downside to intermarriage.
> The obverse of hybrid vigor: the possibility that combining > genes which didn't evolve to work together might cause > health problems due to incompatibilities.
> For example, ace genetics reporter Nicholas Wade wrote in > the New York Times ( 11/11/05) about a gene variant that is > benign in whites and Asians but more than triples the heart > attack risk in part-white African-Americans:
> "Dr. Stefansson [of Iceland's DeCode Genetics] said he > believed that the more active version of this gene might > have risen to prominence in Europeans and Asians because > it conferred extra protection against infectious > disease.
> "Along with the protection would have come a higher risk > of heart attack because plaques that build up in the > walls of the arteries could become inflamed and rupture. > But because the active version of the gene started to be > favored long ago, Europeans and Asians have had time to > develop genetic changes that offset the extra risk of > heart attack.
> "The active version of the inflammatory gene would have > passed from Europeans into African-Americans only a few > generations ago, too short a time for development of > genes that protect against heart attack, Dr. Stefansson > suggested."
> [Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine]
> Like hybrid vigor, genetic incompatibilities across racial > lines unquestionably exist in some cases. So the key > empirical question is: what the net balance of the two > opposing forces?''
> My guess is that one of the parental fears behind the > common disapproval of interracial marriages, is the > concern that any offspring will not fit well into > either family's social group - due to not being > perceived as being a full relative as a result > of differing racial markers. > -- > __________ > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Here is the entire article from the New York Times
Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine
By NICHOLAS WADE Published: November 11, 2005 Correction Appended
In a finding that is likely to sharpen discussion about the merits of race-based medicine, an Icelandic company says it has detected a version of a gene that raises the risk of heart attack in African-Americans by more than 250 percent.
The company, DeCode Genetics, first found the variant gene among Icelanders and then looked for it in three American populations, in Philadelphia, Cleveland and Atlanta.
Among Americans of European ancestry, the variant is quite common, but it causes only a small increase in risk, about 16 percent.
The opposite is true among African-Americans. Only 6 percent of African-Americans have inherited the variant gene, but they are 3.5 times as likely to suffer a heart attack as those who carry the normal version of the gene, a team of DeCode scientists led by Dr. Anna Helgadottir reported in an article released online yesterday by Nature Genetics.
Dr. Kari Stefansson, the company's chief executive, said he would consult with the Association of Black Cardiologists and others as to whether to test a new heart attack drug specifically in a population of African-Americans.
The drug, known now as DG031, inhibits a different but closely related gene and is about to be put into Phase 3 trials, the last stage before a maker seeks the Food and Drug Administration's approval.
Last year a drug called BiDil evoked mixed reactions after it was shown to sharply reduce heart attacks among African-Americans, (incorrect) first in a general study and then in a targeted study, after it failed to show efficacy in the general population. The drug, invented by Dr. Jay N. Cohn, a cardiologist at the University of Minnesota, prompted objections that race-based medicine was the wrong approach.
Geneticists agree that the medically important issue is not race itself but the genes that predispose a person to disease. But it may often be useful for physicians to take race into account because the predisposing genes for many diseases follow racial patterns.
The new variant found by DeCode Genetics is a more active version of a gene that helps govern the body's inflammatory response to infection. Called leukotriene A4 hydrolase, the gene is involved in the synthesis of leukotrienes, agents that maintain a state of inflammation.
Dr. Stefansson said he believed that the more active version of this gene might have risen to prominence in Europeans and Asians because it conferred extra protection against infectious disease.
Along with the protection would have come a higher risk of heart attack because plaques that build up in the walls of the arteries could become inflamed and rupture. But because the active version of the gene started to be favored long ago, Europeans and Asians have had time to develop genetic changes that offset the extra risk of heart attack.
The active version of the inflammatory gene would have passed from Europeans into African-Americans only a few generations ago, too short a time for development of genes that protect against heart attack, Dr. Stefansson suggested.
The DG031 drug being tested by DeCode Genetics affects a second gene, but one that is also involved in control of leukotrienes. Because the drug reduces leukotriene levels and inflammation, it may help African-Americans who have the variant of the hydrolase gene. "It would make scientific, economic and particularly political sense to have a significant part of the clinical trials done in an African-American population," Dr. Stefansson said.
A spokeswoman for the black cardiologists' group, which supported the BiDil trial, said the group's officials were not ready to discuss the new gene.
Dr. Troy Duster of New York University, an adviser to the federal Human Genome Project and a past president of the American Sociological Association, said he saw no objection to a trial, provided it focused on African-Americans with the risk-associated variant of the gene and took into account that people with ancestry from different regions of Africa might show variations in risk.
But Dr. Charles Rotimi, a genetic epidemiologist at Howard University, said a separate study of African-Americans would not be desirable. The variant gene may be overactive in African-Americans because of their greater exposure to deleterious environments, Dr. Rotimi said.
Dr. Cohn, the inventor of BiDil, said it was "always best to study a drug in a highly responsive group," rather than testing large populations where possible benefits to subgroups could be missed.
Correction: Nov. 16, 2005, Wednesday:
An article on Friday about the genetics of heart disease in African-Americans referred imprecisely to the drug BiDil. It has been found to increase survival among black patients with advanced heart disease, not to reduce heart attacks.
The article states, "The opposite is true among African-Americans. Only 6 percent of African-Americans have inherited the variant gene, but they are 3.5 times as likely to suffer a heart attack as those who carry the normal version of the gene, a team of DeCode scientists led by Dr. Anna Helgadottir reported in an article released online yesterday by Nature Genetics." Why only 6% and what makes this 6% different from the other 94% of African Americans? Since West Africans were brought over to America for slavery there has been more or less interracial mating of the population. In New Orleans they even had privelaged mulatto community because of the greater lightness of their skin. African Americans are much more prone to some diseases than others. Is it all due to genetic incompatibility through interracial mating? I don't think so. Dr. Charles Rotimi, a genetic epidemiologist at Howard University, said a separate study of African-Americans would not be desirable. The variant gene may be overactive in African-Americans because of their greater exposure to deleterious environments, Dr. Rotimi said. A spokeswoman for the black cardiologists' group, which supported the BiDil trial, said the group's officials were not ready to discuss the new gene. I could be mistaken but given the history of African Americans in medicine and the discrimination they have faced in the recent past they may be very wary of the idea of race-based medicine, even if it has a partial basis. The drug BiDil was shown to have efficacy with advanced heart disease, not preventing heart attacks.
The article states, "Dr. Troy Duster of New York University,
...
RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote: > Tim Tyler wrote: > > RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote: > > > Tim Tyler wrote:
> > >> The usual rule in biology is to choose a mate who is like you, > > >> but not /too/ much like you.
> > >> Dangers of too much inbreeding include the problems you mentioned.
> > >> Dangers of too much outbreeding include half breeds, mule effects > > >> and incompatible gene complexes - effects which have most likely > > >> contributed to the stigma historically associated with such > > >> unions - e.g. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
> > > I doubt you would have stated this without researching it first. As far > > > as human engaging in interracial mating I think everyone is aware of > > > the term "half-breed". I'm also aware at times throughout history > > > "half-breeds" have had a hard social time being accepted and fitting > > > in. I'm not aware of human "half-breeds" having mule like effects and > > > incompatible gene complexes. Can you provide evidence of signifigant > > > mule effects and incompatible gene complexes among humans who > > > interracially mate? In short, evidence biological abnormalities are > > > more prevalent in this special population than the average population.
> > An example of the other side of the coin to hybrid vigor > > in humans:
> > ``And there is a downside to intermarriage.
> > The obverse of hybrid vigor: the possibility that combining > > genes which didn't evolve to work together might cause > > health problems due to incompatibilities.
> > For example, ace genetics reporter Nicholas Wade wrote in > > the New York Times ( 11/11/05) about a gene variant that is > > benign in whites and Asians but more than triples the heart > > attack risk in part-white African-Americans:
> > "Dr. Stefansson [of Iceland's DeCode Genetics] said he > > believed that the more active version of this gene might > > have risen to prominence in Europeans and Asians because > > it conferred extra protection against infectious > > disease.
> > "Along with the protection would have come a higher risk > > of heart attack because plaques that build up in the > > walls of the arteries could become inflamed and rupture. > > But because the active version of the gene started to be > > favored long ago, Europeans and Asians have had time to > > develop genetic changes that offset the extra risk of > > heart attack.
> > "The active version of the inflammatory gene would have > > passed from Europeans into African-Americans only a few > > generations ago, too short a time for development of > > genes that protect against heart attack, Dr. Stefansson > > suggested."
> > [Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine]
> > Like hybrid vigor, genetic incompatibilities across racial > > lines unquestionably exist in some cases. So the key > > empirical question is: what the net balance of the two > > opposing forces?''
> > My guess is that one of the parental fears behind the > > common disapproval of interracial marriages, is the > > concern that any offspring will not fit well into > > either family's social group - due to not being > > perceived as being a full relative as a result > > of differing racial markers. > > -- > > __________ > > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Raced-Based Medicine Continued....
NICHOLAS WADE The New York Times, 11/14/2004
RESEARCHERS last week described a new drug, called BiDil, that sharply reduces death from heart disease among African-Americans. That sounds like unalloyed good news, especially because African-Americans have been underrepresented in previous drug trials and because there is already an important class of heart drug that does not work as well in blacks as it does in whites.
But not everyone is cheering unreservedly. Many people, including some African-Americans, have long been uneasy with the concept of race-based medicine, in part from fear that it may legitimize less benign ideas about race.
Marketing BiDil as a drug for blacks is ''a classical example of using race as a surrogate for biology,'' said Dr. Georgia Dunston, a medical geneticist at Howard University, noting the drug does not work in all African-Americans and may well be of benefit to other groups. The emergence of BiDil, described last week in The New England Journal of Medicine, is a sharp reality test for an academic debate about race and medicine that has long occupied the pages of medical journals. Is there a biological basis for race? If there is not, as many social scientists and others argue, how can a drug like BiDil work so well in one race? Even if there were a genetic reason for race, why drag race into medicine when a physician's only concern is with the specific genes that predispose to disease?
Advances stemming from the human genome project are likely to produce many new diagnostic tests and treatments tailored to specific population groups, including races and ethnicities within races. BiDil, however, had nothing to do with the genome project. It is a combination of two old drugs, invented some 30 years ago by Dr. Jay N. Cohn, a physician at the University of Minnesota. On its first trial, in a general population, it didn't seem particularly effective. But in reanalyzing the data a few years ago, Dr. Cohn found it had worked well in a specific group of patients, who happened to be black.
The Food and Drug Administration said it would license the drug if a second trial confirmed the result. The new trial, conducted with the help of the Association of Black Cardiologists, had to be stopped when it became clear the drug was so effective that it would be unethical to deny it to the control group.
This month, in a special issue on race published by the journal Nature Genetics, several geneticists wrote that people can generally be assigned to their continent of origin on the basis of their DNA, and that these broad geographical regions correspond to self-identified racial categories, such as African, East Asian, European and Native American. Race, in other words, does have a genetic basis, in their view.
But researchers from Howard University, a center of African-American scholarship, argued in the same journal that there was no biological basis for race and that any apparent link between genes and disease should be made directly, without taking race into account.
Most geneticists agree with the Howard researchers that the underlying genes, not race as such, is what is important for understanding disease. But many say that race can be a valuable clue. In the case of BiDil, race was essential to proving the drug's effectiveness. ''It was the only way we had -- there was no other marker that would tell us how to select a population that would respond,'' Dr. Cohn said.
Findings based on race can be hard to interpret correctly because many other factors, from behavior to access to medical care, can track along with any genetic component. People are often too quick to assume that any difference found between two races is genetic and immutable, said Dr. David Altshuler, a medical geneticist at Harvard University. But race should still be taken into account, he said, even if as a last resort.
BiDil is designed to increase levels of a chemical signal known as nitric oxide, which tends to be lower in Africans, possibly because low levels help retain salt for people living in hot climates. Thus there may be a genetic basis for African-Americans' positive response to the drug. Dr. Cohn said he hoped to identify the particular gene, or set of genes, that is involved. Though that genetic combination is presumably more common in Africans, it may well exist in people of other races, who would also stand to benefit from the drug.
Whatever medical benefits geneticists may promise, people may be disconcerted at being defined genetically, particularly for the purpose of having a set of diseases associated with them. There has been fear of stigmatization among Jews following discovery of a number of Jewish genetic diseases.
Some African-Americans fear that if doctors start to make diagnoses by race, then some in the public may see that as a basis for imputing behavioral traits as well. ''If you think in terms of taxonomies of race, you will make the dangerous conclusion that race will explain violence,'' says Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University.
Of course, every race and ethnic group has its own particular pattern of disease. The blood disorder hemochromatosis is more common among Scandinavians, and the predisposing gene is thought to have been spread elsewhere in Europe by the Vikings. But the danger of stigmatizing a population by linking its genetics with diseases is probably higher for groups of lower socioeconomic status.
''Anything that invites the perception of African Americans as biologically different is a huge worry,'' said Dr. Gregg Bloche, a Georgetown University physician who studies racial disparities in health care.
|
