Global DNA Project to Study Human Ancestry 325
Steve writes "The National Geographic Society and IBM are teaming up to map the history of human migration using DNA. The Genographic Project aims to collect 100,000 genetic samples which will be used trace the movements of humans out of Africa and around the globe. While the most useful samples will come from indiginous populations, members of the general public will be able to mail in their own DNA on special cheek swabs."
What would be interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
If OA's regions flat-out contradict NG's, then one or both sets of data must be wrong. A fatal flaw exists in an assumption that has been made. Which would be valuable to know, from a scientific standpoint, even if it would hurt sales.
If the two agree, it isn't proof that they are accurate, but provided the work was independently carried out, it raises the chances that they really are onto something.
Interesting stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been some studies of human DNA and these have often produced very interesting results, showing accurately how people migrated across the globe.
The problem up to now is that these have been relatively small studies confined to specific issues - such as the colonisation of the Pacific islands, which happened from Indonesia, not South America (sorry, Thor).
A large-scale analysis of human DNA that includes Africa - the richest mix of DNA by far - will be very, very interesting.
For example, there are theories that modern Africans are largely descended from relatively recent immigrants from the Indian Ocean basin who recolonised from the East coast and mixed with aboriginal Africans - such as the Khoi and San - eventually pushing these into the margins.
Good stuff.
Incremental Knowledge (Score:5, Interesting)
The African exodus I think is pretty well understood. Although, there seems to have been multiple exodi (?) of hominid species that did not survive in the long term (such as the Neanderthal in Europe).
From what I understand, the story gets harder to piece together in the last part of the European migrations from Central Asia.
A couple of interesting TV shows on this were The Real Eve [discovery.com] (which does the mitochondrial trace through maternal ancestral lines), and Journey of Man [nationalgeographic.com], which relates to the more difficult task of tracing mutations in the Y chromosome handed done through paternal lines.
One of the earlier pioneers in the field, Brian Sykes of Oxford, started up a side business [google.com] where you can send swabs to obtain information about maternal and paternal markers in your genetic makeup (IIRC, about US$225).
A few years ago I got the analysis done and sent the results back to Ma 'n Pa for Mother's Day and Father's Day gifts.
Re:What would be interesting... (Score:1, Interesting)
The more samples = better the data.
Our Complex History (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is the map I want to see more fully realized:
http://www.mitomap.org/WorldMigrations.pdf
There are interesting legends and recent research that Genographic project might help: were there Austronesian ("aborigine") migrations across the Pacific 40,000 years ago? Are modern Tibetans and Athapaskan speakers (Navaho) related through the so-called Amur River Culture? When and how often have the "X" haplogroups travelled to America, and were these only Neolithic migrations or did they occur throughout the Bronze and Iron ages? Finally, how much back-migration occured from the Americas to the Old World continents? I'm not the one to research it, but a correlation between Am-Indian oral lore and this geno-map could make for an interesting thesis.
My guess is that the project will show far more migration than previously expected - humans are nothing if not mobile.
josh
historical linguistics (Score:4, Interesting)
North and South America (Score:3, Interesting)
It is generally agreed that the first humans arrived in the americas around 25-30,000 years ago but their migration from that point on is a mystery.
One belief is that they migrated south through a northern passage as the polar ice-caps melted. Another is that they migrated down the west coast from the north pole to south America befoer the ice-caps melted. There is a third (more controversial) theory that they migrated by boat from africa and then moved north up the continent.
It will be interesting to see what conclusions are drawn.
DNA is the ANTI CHRIST (Score:4, Interesting)
The best case of DNA invalidating a religion is Mormonism. The founder of Mormonism claimed to have translated a book that was written by a people that migrated from the Middle East to the American continent. He claimed that these immigrants were the "priciple ancestors" of the modern day American Indian.
Well it turns out that DNA proves what science has been saying for years. The American Indian is of Asiatic decent. Any other examples of DNA destroying a religion?
Re:Great (Score:2, Interesting)
>There's probably DNA floating around EVERYWHERE by now!
Human skin flakes, a.k.a. dander, is everywhere that humans are. It just flakes off and floats away.
It's kinda creepy to think that every breathe we take may include a little bit of the person in the next cubicle. Remind me to hand out loofas at the next staff meeting.
Re:What would be interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that they'll have the same conclusions. Oxford Ancestors will probably be assisting in the project.
By the way, Spencer Wells, head of the Genographic Project wrote a book on his conclusions so far, The Journey of Man [amazon.com].
This is frustrating... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, there is another model called the multi-regional model that states Homo sapiens evolved sperately on each of the different continents. How could this happen you say? Because enough interbreeding went on to maintain species integrity. Proponents of the Out-of-Africa model tend to ignore fossil evidence from Dali China that shows a skull exhibiting charateristics closer to H. sapiens than H. erectus - pre-dating the earliest evidence from Africa. Or other evidence such as a blending of charateristics in the middle east (mix of Neanderthal/H. Sapiens): EXACTLY where you would expect to find that sort of thing.
Check out the following link: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/more-on-mult
Or google: Milford Wolpoff http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Milford+Wolp
The Out-of-Africanists are force fitting a theory on the existing data. Something they are able to get away with because the current "most popular" scientists (D. Johanson, Leekey) push it. Its unfortunate that politics has worked its way into science.
Remember, you only find what you are looking for.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
If creationist beliefs of the age of the earth are believed (where the 6000 comes from) then that should be over6000 years ago. The ~6000 year number was determined by the ArchBishop Usser in 1664 that the Earth was created on Oct 26, 4004 B.C. at 9:00 am. Which is just short of 6009 years ago. Man was created on Nov 1, 4004 BC and woman two days later on Nov 3, 4004 BC. So on Nov 4, the serpent tricked Eve into eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, and Adam & Eve were subsequently banished from Eden. All 6008 years, 5 months, and 9 days ago.
Re:We all have one parents (Adame and Eve) (Score:2, Interesting)
Even in translation the styles are starkly different.
Re:DNA is the ANTI CHRIST (Score:1, Interesting)
DNA evidence suggests the possibility of a single
"mitochondrial Eve" as she is referred to. Exactly how does DNA evidence go against the majority of religious beliefs anyway?
Or did you just want to trash religion so you could get some free mod points?
Re:How'd that work... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is an extensive summary of studies. [childsuppo...ysis.co.uk] As the summary suggests, rates of misattributed paternity vary widely, from about 1% in some areas to over 20% in others, mostly depending on social/economic status. However, the fact is, most of us are almost certain to have some interlopers in our heritage--we are all mongrels under the skin!
--Tom
Re:Is this really science??? (Score:5, Interesting)
re: origin debate (Score:2, Interesting)
So, as the evidence mounts in favour of a recent African origin, one might ask why we continue to speculate about our evolutionary history. Why are we still digging if the roots have been unearthed? The answer is that in spite of the facts, there is still no final answer. None of the deductions made thus far are watertight, and the methods and approaches employed are continually being reassessed. For instance, over recent years the assumption that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited and thereby free from recombination has been disputed. If sperm mitochondria are found to recombine with mitochondria present in the ovum, the credibility of the mitochondrial evidence may be called into question. Similarly, flaws in the molecular clock technique have been highlighted.
The story is further complicated by the possibility that neither of the principal models (OAR and Multiregional) is correct. The true explanation may be an amalgamation of the two, which is reflected in the alternate "Hybridisation" and "Assimilation" models. These theories tone down the role of replacement in human evolution by incorporating gene flow and hybridisation yet still allow that Africa has a prime position in human genetic history. The exact importance of Africa, and indeed the full narrative, remains to be told. But with further advances in molecular techniques, and the use of alternate gene systems, we may finally be getting closer to solving the mystery of where we came from...
Paraminder Dhillon
There are other arguements against the african origin, just as there are mounting arguments against the land bridge theory. Much of the arguements is that we are finding the oldest humans in Africa because that is where we are looking. It's easy to find things in Africa, as opposed to say the frozen North, which may have older fossil evidence from when those latitudes were much warmer but are now buried beneath snow and ice. Regardless, these theories being held as "law" are making it quite difficult to do real science.
Proponents of the Land Bridge Migration have made it very difficult to accept dating clovis man, mummies in South America and sites in South Carolina older because they so conflict with their precious theory. In the same manner, evidence that conflicts with the African Origin theory is ruled as wrong rather than as interesting. To me, this doesn't seem like science but rather religion: if data conflicts with a theory, it should call the theory into question rather than the data, particularily when there are many data points that do not support a theory that is based on very little data.
Look at where these tennents are coming from -- victorian notions. We see our Christian views as central to everything and we try to fit our observations to fit these views. Rather than searching for "Adam & Eve", science should be searching for early humans and try to figure out what it might mean. We have very little data on humans past 100,000 years. It could very likely turn out that humans migrated to Africa for the weather when other regions became too cold. Older human remains than those found in South Africa where "Adam" is placed on the articles map have been found far to the North in Ethiopia.
--
don't anthropomorphize ancient people, they don't like it
I used to do something similar (Score:3, Interesting)
Later on the data-entry part, I had changed the screen resolution from 640x480 to 800x600 -- so I could see the whole entry form without scrolling. When someone noticed this, they send out 3 technicians: two to figure out how to change the res back, and one to scold my manager for letting me do this. Afterwards, my manager told me that it makes sense to increase productivity, but not when policies are interfered with.
Handling biological samples might be a ton of fun, but it's the other associated tasks that may be less than fun.
Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is frustrating... (Score:3, Interesting)
If populations are interbreeding sufficiently to maintain genetic homogeneity then they were not separate in the relevant sense, and cannot be characterized as evolving separately. "Evolving simultaneously as one large, well-connected, interbreeding population" would be a more accurate description.
Such an event is a priori improbable, although that does not mean it is impossible.
One important prop for the out-of-Africa model is that the most currently plausible models of speciation are based on small, isolated populations. For example, the chromosome fusion that happened at some point in our divergence from our simian ancestors could not have happened successfully in a large, dispersed population.
Not all speciation depends on such dramatic events, but a small, isolated population will always be more prolific of new species than a large, dispersed one if only because the trend of local selective pressure will consistent across the whole population. It is hard to imagine the same selective pressures acting in a sufficiently consistent manner across a very large geographic area.
Of course, just because something is hard to imagine doesn't mean it didn't occur.
Remember, you only find what you are looking for.
Nonsense. Scientists find stuff all the time that we weren't looking for. Sometimes we ignore it if our preconceived ideas conflict with it, but we do so at our peril, because someone else will notice it, publish it, win the Nobel and get all the hot chicks.
--Tom
Ask /.-Designing a human eugenics program? (Score:3, Interesting)
There must be countless ways of planning such a program, many of them pleasant and or humane. Though two problems remain, how to identify benefitial traits (and just what is benefitial) and how these are to be increased in frequency. So, a question for Ask Slashdot could be:
- What characteristics would a benefitial and humane eugenics program have? How would it be humanely and ethically rolled out?
Science fiction authors and films have brought up the topic in both the foreground (Gattacca, Boys from Brazil, Brave New World ) and background (Niven's Ringworld novels or StarTreck corp.'s Space Seed & Wrath of Kahn) But how would a program improve the species and remain humane? How would improvement be defined?Most tribes used to have ordeals which one must pass in order to achieve adult status and privileges, e.g. voting and marriage. Some still do. One of the First Nations in the US modified theirs to conform to US law and substituted part of the ordeal with an enlistment in the Marine Corps infantry, sending a whole platoon through once every two years.
Others have dropped the requirements. Finland, for example, used to require that people could only marry if they could read. Given the stigma and other problems back then of out of wedlock children, this gave a huge reproductive advantage to those that could read.
Others never had requirements and actually penalize stronger, healthier, or smarter individuals:
-
successful athletes are pushed harder until they are crippled or begin to break down organs and tissues or take enhancement drugs, some of which have negative long term side effects.
- successful professionals (doctors, lawyers and other highload jobs) must usually postpone or de-prioritize personal development and even family responsibilities for their careers. stress and work load often contributes to shortened involvment in child rearing
- military personell (statistically stronger and smarter than median) are put in harms way, exposed to stress and environmental pathogens which can cause physical or mental damage. death is an indefinitely, but wating until after the enlistment or going to school after adds delay, too. having kids during an enlistment has disadvantages which may or may not be significant
- academics generally have to postpone or de-prioritize personal development and even family responsibilities for their careers. The sedenatary lifestyle can also cause health problems. New faculty gunning for tenure must work a minimum 80-90 hours per week or face uprooting and relocating
- etc.
Anything that delays and/or reduces reproduction reduces the frequency of those traits in the population. Anything that shortens the useful length of life also reduces the grandparent benefit, which is a key advantage in primates like homo sapiens sapiens. So nowadays, most nations are effectively culling healthy, strong, or smart individuals.