Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive haplo

Addressing Crusio's comment, there are markers that could be looked for. for example is the PCSK9 allele, this is all in the context that certain races are more susceptible to certain diseases. Certain races also respond differently to medications. Certain allels are prevalent in only certain races (although there is race mixing as immigration and such, the alleles are still passed on)

I'm sure you all know I'm alluding to NitroMed's BiDil. http://investors.nitromed.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130535&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=723543&highlight=

More on DiBil on wiki is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiDil

In this case, BiDil seems to help heart failure in african americans more then other races. Should we not research into this?

Would it be racist to give african americans (in the article, they were "self identified black patients") this medicine?

I think a lot of the stigma around nazi's and eugenics and racism has halted the academic freedom into research into this matter. People needs to understand that as an academic, one must have an academic view on things. If a particular drug helps a particular race, then why not use it? But we can't CHOOSE what results produces, we must accept them in order to change. ie. If a particular gene/allele is present in one race that's lacking in others, I must ACKNOWLEDGE the difference in order to help develop methods to create possible genetic cures. Like I said in my previous post here about apples, we must accept the research in order to make decisions to the best our abilities.

To turn a blind eye to this is not only limiting academic freedom, but is an injustice to humanity as a whole. An example is seen in the case of Lysenkoism, which caused famines that killed millions. Darkcurrent 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not have any direct connection with "race and genetics." However, it does illustrate a pitfall where it says "although there is race mixing as immigration and such, the alleles are still passed on." The elleles in question are indeed passed on, but there is no way to predict which children of mixed marriages will get which alleles. That is the nature of [race] -- it's always statistical. Nobody that I know of is saying that black people should not have medicines that are more often helpful for that group than for other groups. But the danger is that simplistic reasoning will be used and the medications that are more probable to help some patients of one [race] will be prescribed for all members of that [race] and adequate follow-ups will not be performed. Some patients, the ones with the appropriate genetic traits, will be helped, but some patients who do not have the appropriate genetic traits will not respond as favorably to those medications as they would to other medications. P0M 04:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

there is a dispute on whether Admixture testing can work on Native Americans since they share common haplogroups with Asian populations at Talk:Race_and_genetics#Admixture_studies_in_latin_america and Talk:Race_and_genetics#i_REMOVE_THE_TABLE_IS_WRONG Muntuwandi 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haplotype F

Our ancestors were also monkeys, lemurs, dinosaurs, fish, etc. Doesn't really mean anything. Y-chromosome Haplogroup K [sorry here I meant F, but K is similar and a descendant of F], the progeny of a single man, underwent some significant mutations and adaptations and is almost exclusively responsible for the major human accomplishments. I can only see a unfortunate socio-political agenda behind downplaying that. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heaviest concentrations of that haplotype seem to be in the islands between Malaysia and Australia. As a convert to Daoism I'll assume that you mean that the somewhat meager availability of Y-chromosome Haplogroup K in China was yet enough to account for the Chinese being well educated while the Irish were still going naked into battle. There seems to be no trace of the golden mark on the otherwise virtually functionless Y chromosome anywhere to the west of Europe until you get to some of the Pacific islands. Was Newton the one Englishman who had the magic K? ;-)

Since you haven't offered any evidence whatsoever for your claims of the intelligence levels of carriers of that marker, perhaps that lack accounts for what you see as a "socio-political agenda." P0M 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I meant Haplogroup F. K is pretty significant as well, and most europeans are descended from K - R1b and R1a are K descendants. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China is all K. Look at Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup. All the descendants of F and K carry those respective markers. China is both K and F but the people are categorized into descendant groups. F accounts for 90% of all people but not sub-saharan africans. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeh sure like language, art, music. Haplogroups are of the mitochondria have nothing to do with a intelligence. hypothetically you could switch mitochondria and there would be no change in phenotype.Muntuwandi 05:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise you could change Y chromosomes for Y chromosomes and produce no change either, I suspect. (There are two Haplogroups named K, which is confusing.) I was going to suggest that you could get rid of the Y chromosome entirely. That would change the phenotype from male to (sterile) female, but I doubt that much else would change. P0M 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm refering a y-chromosome haplogroup, not mitochondrial (there are K haplogroups described for both, as linked above I mean the Y chromosome one - Haplogroup K (Y-DNA) [here I was thinking of Haplogroup F (Y-DNA)]). You certainly couldn't replace someone's Y chromosome without altering their phenotype in some way. And a change in mitochondria could alter the phenotype (see mitochrondrial diseases for example), and at any rate it is used to track maternal ancestry which would also be associated with significant heritable traits. I find it absurd to want to believe that there are not more differences in populations than the obviously visible traits. If one family isn't the same as the next, when would one ethnicity or race be the same as the next? Especially given that some ethnicites (like Celts, R1b) are almost completely pure families descended from a single man. The same can be said for the super-race or subspecies of europeans-asians, haplogroup K. Thats just one giant family, a family like any other, with a single common male ancestor to trace their origins from. Why would clustering of physical traits be much different from clustering of behavioral traits? Culture neither begets or is begotten by genetics - they are in constant feedback with each other. The resultant selection is inevitable. It's just a fact - the specifics we can debate, but the basic premise is indisputable. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, language and art at least existed in some form before

Please sign your postings.

All we have of Haplogroup F so far are Fourdee's assertions.