Humanity's Genetic Diversity on the Decline 285
jd writes "In a study covering five different periods of history, from 300 AD to the present day, and geographically spread across much of Europe, scientists have extracted the mitochondrial DNA from a sizable number of individuals in an effort to examine changes in diversity. The results, published in the Royal Society journal is intriguing to say the least. 1700 years ago, three out of every four individuals belonged to a different haplotype. In modern Europe, the number is only one in three. The researchers blame a combination of plague, selection of dominant lineages and culturally-inflicted distortions. The researchers say more work needs to be done, but are unclear if this involves archaeology or experiments involving skewing the data in the local female population."
Is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their conclusions are not valid for all of humanity anyway. How does Western Europe equal humanity? It is already known [sciencedaily.com] that there is less genetic diversity in two Europeans from different countries than there is in two Africans from the same village. What a Eurocentric point of view.
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't. For one thing, diversity is itself a survival trait in a population -- a population that had actually all zeroed in on the one single 'most fit' genotype would be terribly vulnerable.
It's misconceptions like these that make it easier for cranky American Protestants to think of 'Evolutionism' as just another faith.
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Lif e Sciences/Ecology/AnimalBehav [oup.com]
Re:Is this news? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all. Me thinks you do not understand the concept of scientific reasoning as well as one might hope. It is a theory 'not based on the existence of a creator', which is a far cry from 'a theory based on the NON-existence of a creator'. Not assuming the existence of a 'creator' (whatever one may choose to mean with that) one does ones best to understand and explain observed phenomenon in a rational manner. While one cannot yet prove that the flying spaghetti monster does or does not exist through repeatable experimentation (and people should feel free to contribute their research in this area to the scientific community as a whole), one can make a very good description of the functioning of the world around us without having to tackle the issue of the influence of his omnipotent noodly appendages.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
This oppression is also why it's absolutely impossible to get elected President unless you're an avowed Atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(And that's without even going into the massive amount of questions invoking a creator invokes in the first place.)
Keep in mind, though, that evolution is not a theory about the origin of the un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. There is nothing in the scientific method that disallows the concept creator! You just can't go "oh we don't know how this works it must be the creator". If you develop a hypothesis of a creator or some phenomena that is a manifestation of a creator you are required to provide some direct observations, measurements and predictions to substantiate the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ID is stupid, not because it invokes a Creator, but because it pretends to be a scientific theory while invoking a Creator whose existence cannot be proven or disproven. ID is non-falsifiable, ergo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then like I said you're already aware of one of the greatest triumphs of the theory. Long before microbiology was anywhere near advanced enough to find it, evolutionary theory predicted that there would be found a biological mechanism for passing traits between
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is complete nonsense. It is their job to discover what truth is, not to determine it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fine example of the moronic left not seeing the world moderating and controling it I suppose.
Or, conversely, a fine example of the righteous right seeing the picture, but only from their point of view and seeking to make sure the rest of the world sees it their way.
In general, I'd say that a lack of genetic diversity seems an obvious outcome from cent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The catch, of course, is that "fittest" depends on the environment that the organism lives in. And "less suitable genetic traits" are just the ones that happen to result in the individual's untimely death (i.e., before it reproduces). My myopia is obviously a less suitable genetic trait that could get me killed if I get into a situation where I need to see a danger at a distance. But none of my nearly-blind ancestors managed to get themselves killed before I came along, and I have managed to reproduce, an
Re: (Score:2)
Survival of the fittest is how nature does selection.
Societies introduce artificial changes to what defines "fittest", so this isn't necessarily a purely 'normal' evolutionary change.
For instance, in North America, those doing the most procreation in many cases might be the least fit. They're not the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually a lot of the confusion is cleared up by thinking of it as "survival of the fit enough" instead of "the fittest".
You can roughly divide the gene pool into three categories. Those that are not fit enough to survive are quickly weeded out. Those that are very fit to survive prosper and multiply. Those that are fit enough in easy times, but not fit enough during rough times such as famine or plagues or increased competition
Re: (Score:2)
An individual that does not reproduce and does not increase the reproduction of those who shares their genes are the least fit.
They can be brilliant, have the body of a greek god, and never get sick but if the less copies of their genes they pass on, the less fit they are (in this sense of the word).
Currently, being religious and poorly educated appears to provide a big advantage in reproductive fitness.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Okay...
IF they don't breed and the others outbreed them and then the others kill them, their decision to not breed will have been stupid (even tho everyone ultimately dies when the out-breeders ultimately starve due to overbreeding).
I Can Vouch For That! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it just boils down to the increased mobility of populations allowing groups to interbreed more freely...200 years ago, you could have lots of little enclaves of genetic diversity within a few dozen miles of each other that would seldom if ever gain any genes from each other.
These days there is no guarantee that genes won't be shared regularly across a thousand miles or more. My wife and I were born 400 miles apart. My parents were born in the s
skewing data (Score:5, Funny)
In the name of science, I volunteer for any experiments involving "skewing" "data" into the local female population.
Re: (Score:2)
You people are so predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
"skewing the data in the local female population." (Score:2)
Re:"skewing the data in the local female populatio (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, genetic diversity cannot be helped by a society that favors monogamous, life-long relationships between couples. The most genetic diversity is achieved when women have children by as many different men as possible throughout their lifetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you're suggesting that women become more like the women one sees walking about in the inner cities or appear on Maury Povich doing the paternity tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, human mitichondrial DNA is just as much "human DNA" as is nuclear DNA. Sure, it was bacterial originally, but the point at which it became a vital part of our cells was very early in the evolution of eukaryotes, a looong time before there was any such thing as human being
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not entirely relevant to the article, though.
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)
But as was pointed out in an article I read last year, what diversity looks like may very well be in transition. I don't personally quite buy the authors suggestion, but the trend is away from distinctive racial groups and more towards groupings based upon intellect and looks.
Which to some extent makes sense. The premium that most groups place on mating within the same group has been decreasing, at least around here, and people will always choose somebody that they find enjoyable to be around to those that are not. Frequently looks, intellect, sense of humor and health are considered selection criteria. So the idea that the groupings would be based upon that wouldn't be too outlandish.
Re: (Score:2)
On a serious note I've heard it argued that the ease of travel is slowing the rate of human evolution (or if you don't believe in it, human natural selection) as the chances of a even an improving mutation/trait being successful over time is much lessened in a greater pool of individuals.
What about the increased chances of complementary mutations pairing up?
Anyone who says that fusing long-segregated DNA isn't a good idea needs to take a good long look at the results [buddytv.com].
Some points (Score:5, Informative)
There could be a few reasons to this. Anglo-Saxons came to England around 550AD. Also Romans had settled the island. Later also Vikings came. These plus the local population already implies quite a lot of diversity.
Since then some lineages have been more successful, that's it. Actually, this could be considered supporting evidence for D. Gregory Clark's hypothesis that upper classes have been replacing the lower ones during middle ages in England, as reported by Slashdot yesterday, see http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/
Unlikely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Humanity, or caucasian? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The historic sample is kinda small (Score:4, Informative)
I would think that their analysis could still be statistically relevant, but still they say themselves that more work is needed, so I think more historic sample data would be quite useful.
It's already been explained. (Score:3, Informative)
But the parent article refers to a phenomenon mentioned in a slashdot article about the Industrial Revolution less than a day ago. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/
Now the key is to see if the two groups catch on.
Outliers (Score:4, Funny)
British science geeks have it all figured out (Score:5, Funny)
"Hi. We analysed the historical genetic diversity of human populations in Europe at the mtDNA control region for 48 ancient Britons who lived between ca AD 300 and 1000, and compared these with 6320 modern mtDNA genotypes from England and across Europe and the Middle East. We found that the historical sample shows greater genetic diversity than for modern England and other modern populations, indicating the loss of diversity over the last millennium. The pattern of haplotypic diversity was clearly European in the ancient sample, representing each of the modern haplogroups. There was also increased representation of one of the ancient haplotypes in modern populations. We consider these results in the context of possible selection or stochastic processes. So, you understand... you... must have... sex.... with me."
"Are you trying to tell me that the genetic diversity of Britain is at stake if I don't hop into the sack with you?"
"Umm... yes."
"Yes, then. For Britannia and the queen!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_back_and_think_o
All the scientific research aside... (Score:3, Funny)
Increase (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Understatement (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really know anything about European mitochondrial DNA and I'm not entirely sure England (which was swept by various waves of invaders, not all of whom actually stayed, and then remained unchanged for a very long time) is a good example anyway. But I can say that over the last 100 years human genetic diversity (like linguistic diversity and cultural diversity) has plummeted, with truly distinct populations like the Andamanese (google them) and less-distinct but highly diverse populations like those of southern Siberia, Taiwan, and the Caucasus disappearing almost without comment.
Unfortunately, not only is it unfeasibly difficult to prevent such loss, it is also politically well-nigh impossible even to document it, as doing so involves admitting that a given population *is* distinct which is generally unacceptable to Russia and China in one way, and to politically-correct Western academics in another way. From peppercorn hair to multi-base counting systems, the vast majority of human biology, language and tradition has been lost, and a few selected strains and languages grow uncontrollably like some kind of bizarre algal bloom. Made of people.
This is not at all a recent phenomenon but in the last century it has massively speeded up. The catastrophic loss of ecological diversity may be just around the corner but the human equivalent has already happened and with a tiny fraction of the fanfare.
Re:Understatement (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been many catastrophic losses of biodiversity on the planet and there will certainly be more before the Earth becomes barren.
I don't agree that the loss of societal habits, misconceptions and bugbears ("human culture") can be equated. These things may be dear to people but they are mostly rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you have ever tried to do basic arithmetic in multi-base counting systems, you would understand why consistent bases, along with place value notation (even in non-romanic character languages like Japanese), have taken over the world. They are VASTLY ea
Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember this game from Sesame Street. They showed 4 things - 3 were different and one was the same. Same as... uh..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I remember this game from Sesame Street. They showed 4 things - 3 were different and one was the same. Same as... uh..
I have young kids, so I watch that show like 3 times a day. I am a Jedi freaking *master* at 'One of these things is not like the other'. You cannot defeat me.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife clicked the corn, because the other 3 things were pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree: this is not a cause of concern (Score:2)
Give us another couple of years of having russians spread plutonium throughout the world and we will start having a lot MORE genetic diversity.
I for one will welcome our two headed overlords.
In other words... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anno Domini (Score:3, Informative)
All right, if Slashdotters are going to continually jump all over misuse of "begs the question", then there's a pet peeve I'd like to add to that fervor. "300 AD", as it appears in the summary, is also incorrect usage. "AD" stands for anno domini, which is Latin for "in the year of the Lord". The phrase in Latin usage and traditional English usage comes properly before the number, not after. (Say it in full: "300 in the year of the Lord" sounds like an explanation of when something's tricentennial occurred. "In the year of the Lord 300" makes more sense as an absolute time reference.)
The convention of putting "AD" after the number is nothing but sloppy analogizing to "BC", which (being the English phrase "before Christ") does make more sense that way.
Note that the Royal Society writers did get it right. It's the Slashdot summary that's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The really weird thing about this is that at the turn of the century people were getting it right! WTF happened? Is 9/11 to blame for that too? Did people get stoopid after 9/11?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anno Domini (Score:4, Funny)
(lameness filter encountered. I suppose the mods will decide if it's accurate or not. Personally, I think this parenthetical bit ruins the joke. Lame.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When, and why, did "BC" transmogrify into "BCE" (before the Christian era)?
Actually it didn't. There may be argument over this point, but when I first heard the abbreviation BCE, it was expanded to me as "before the Common Era" and explained as a renaming of BC that was meant to be less theocentric without requiring any extra math. Basically, "Let's stop invoking Christ every time we have to list a date more than a thousand years ago, since AD 1 January 1 isn't Christ's actual birthdate anyway."
Accordingly, AD was renamed to CE at the same time. It only adds to the confusion ov
Specialization (Score:2)
Go get yourself DNA tested already, so you know what diseases you're going to inherit and whether
Royals.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Endogamous marriages would preserve diversity (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh (Score:3, Funny)
skewing the data in the local female population
So that's what they call it now.
Wait just one minute here..... (Score:2)
This also makes me think of the tower of babel for some reason...
Maybe what was needed is the diversity of trial and error to then figure out we had it right to begin with.
or some such line of thinking.
But if there really is a lack of diversity problem, we certainly know enough about genetics even now to inject all sorts of genetic deviations.
Disparate time elements (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent's borderline racist argument is also silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Most importantly, it is the correct combination of genes that makes a successful organism as well as individual genes. 'Mixing' of groups of people is hugely advantageous for this reason.
Secondly, genes do not become lost when they combine with genes from another person to make a child. There is just a new combination of genes which can contribute to the whole genetic diversity of mankind. For example, we could take the idea that races should not interbreed a little further and say that people should not breed outside of their immediate family. The problem with this would be that genetic diversity could hardly ever increase, and by attrition mankind would be doomed. By separating races one creates several smaller separate gene-pools each of which is smaller than the original whole and hence more vulnerable.
Thirdly, by separating the societies it would become genetically/evolutionarily advantageous for one race to think of or treat the others as subhumans. By this argument I claim that you have implicitly invoked Godwin's law.
Also, I wish you luck procreating with your sister...
Re:Parent's borderline racist argument is also sil (Score:2)
That's not completely true. For a simple example, if one parent is homozygous dominant for a gene (A/A) and another is heterozygous (A/a) then half of their children on average will have "lost" the recessive allele. If by chance all the children they have happen to be A/A, then that recessive a trait is lost forever.
mod parent (-500 racism) (Score:2)
informative? Ill go out on a limb and ask you if your white... just a guess since your surname has a roman numeral after it...
Maybe there are 'black' people in commercials because they actually are a TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC of the business? Or is it your belief that business doesnt serve black people?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either
Re: (Score:2)
Im sorry, but I have never seen a commercial with a mixed race couple having sex. And neither have you, and neither has ANYONE.
If, however, you are referring to the fact that there are people of mixed races in close proximity to each other as 'mixing', you are just as racist as the parent poster. deal with it.
Just because your 100% white population village doest have 'race-mixing', doesnt mean that the rest of the world operatets that way. Your ignorance is almost as astonishing as your ability to vocal
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make any sense to me. When people with different genes mix you end up with a new combination that didn't exist before thus creating more diversity, not less.
For a fun and tasty experiment go get yourself a bag of M&Ms and seperate the reds and blues. Now put the reds and blues in a clear container together and start mixing them. No matter how much you mix them you still end up with clusters with groups of reds
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two World Wars will do that for you. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
I can't think of a single religion that doesn't want to see its beliefs embraced by the entire world. That's the point of religion--you believe you've found the truth and as a result you structure your life around that truth. If you call yourself a follower of a religion, and then follow it up with "but I think other religions are equally true," then why believe in your particular truth? What motivation do you have? There mu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I'm the AC that wrote the GP. I have to say... I agree with you in part. Depending on the theological views of various Christian groups, they might also have the same hope resulting in the same conclusions on how to bring the result about. I assume you were suggesting Christianity, since it's really the only evangelical religion. Evangelical meaning to "preach the gospel(good news)." Which is a means that emphasizes the personal volition as necessary for true salvation and compulsory conversion by milit