 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / March 2005By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin
By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme > By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin > http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml > The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: > A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme Lewontin forgot about the *patterns* of genes, and by just fucussing on individual gene frequencies was led into serious scientific error about races, which are real, despite his proclamation. Gould knew better. jimbat > > By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin > > http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > individual gene frequencies was led into serious scientific error about > races, which are real, despite his proclamation. Gould knew better. Races, or sub-species "are real" in the biological world in general. Just not in modern, living humans. Sub-species is a very specific term, which requires a minimum intra-species genetic diversity of at least 20-25%. Modern humans don't come anywhere near that diversity, as Lewontin proved. And Lewontin has been proved right again and again by the lack of genetic diversity among living humans, as discovered by geneticists in independent research. Alex >>>By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin >>>http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > at least 20-25%. Modern humans don't come anywhere near that > diversity, as Lewontin proved. That is incorrect. Races are not subspecies. In this regard it is extremely instructive to study the cichlids of Lake Taganyika, where just a change of color puts a female off, despite no real genetic change. However, I would challenge the 20-25% genetic diversity criterion. No one denies that we and chimps and bonobos are separate *species*, yet our genetic difference is a mere 1.5% or so. I don't think either of their genomes has been sequenced yet, but I hope soon. The "little men" (Flores hominids) whose remains were discovered in Indonesia were probably much more closely related genetically to Neandertals than to us, as the line that ended in the Neandertal split off from us some 500,000 years before *we* left Africa. I consider myself an African, and everyone else too, except for my Neandertal cousin 50 times removed. > And Lewontin has been proved right again and again by the lack > of genetic diversity among living humans, as discovered by geneticists > in independent research. > > Alex That is incorrect. In another thousand years there may be no diversity, unless Yellowstone blows. There are differences of patterns and in the expression of different genes, especially in cytoplasmic DNA. How do you think all the different 'Eves' (from 5 to 19 by different counts) have been traced? All breeds of dogs have the same wolf DNA - even the veriest tiny bit of hyperactive coyote bait - but the breeds arise from differences in expression. Did you know that, for instance, all human fetuses, of whatever race, have blue eyes? The color changes after birth with exposure to light. Expression, again. Lewontin did good work, but he did not understand statistics, and so went astray. There is a subfield of statistics called "finding groups in data" by hoi polloi, which any statistician ignores at his peril. Statistics is probably the least understood vital subject among scientists. Straight lines are preferred. BTW, I'm just a retired astrophysicist. My only formal training in genetics was six weeks by Watson, when he was assembling the genetic code on the blackboard in his office, which we were all invited to see. It was like being Present at the Creation, in the words of Dean Acheson. I thank you for your intelligent post. If you pay attention to what I've said, you will be an even better scientist. jimbat >>>>By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin >>>>http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > African, and everyone else too, except for my Neandertal cousin 50 times > removed. Actualy based on the skeletal configuration, brain shapes and fossil age that is not the case at all. The "little men" of the Indonesian island were decended from Homo erectus and divirged genetically from them around 2 million years ago. They also out lived Neandertals in that they seem to have been on the island of Flores until about 18,000 years ago, well after Homo Sapiens had moved into the area of the Indonesian Island chain. While Neanderthals died out shortly after Homo Sapiens moved into Europe. There are some gentitisists that believe there may have been some cross breeding of late Homo Erectus with early Homo Sapiens though the genitic evidence is not conculsive on that debate. Gary Stein >> And Lewontin has been proved right again and again by the lack >> of genetic diversity among living humans, as discovered by geneticists [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > jimbat >>The "little men" (Flores hominids) whose remains were discovered in >>Indonesia were probably much more closely related genetically to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of late Homo Erectus with early Homo Sapiens though the genitic evidence is > not conculsive on that debate. <boggles at apparent definition of "shortly after" in use in above paragraph> Aqua >>>The "little men" (Flores hominids) whose remains were discovered in >>>Indonesia were probably much more closely related genetically to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > <boggles at apparent definition of "shortly after" in use in above > paragraph> I've heard that there's some (academic) debate as to whether they died out, or were (at least partially) absorbed. Ruth >>> The "little men" (Flores hominids) whose remains were discovered in >>> Indonesia were probably much more closely related genetically to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Aqua True. 50k-28k = 22k, not a short period in our experience. And the spelling... jimbat [...] >>>Races, or sub-species "are real" in the biological world in general. >>>Just not in modern, living humans. Sub-species is a very specific [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of late Homo Erectus with early Homo Sapiens though the genitic evidence is > not conculsive on that debate. Please watch your spelling. I try, but make typos. Of course they outlived Neanderthals as they were pretty isolated from us, but your dates are wrong. They went extinct no more than ~13,000 yrs ago, from the few skeletons that have been recovered, probably killed by a heavy deposit of volcanic ash. They do not have the appearance of Homo erectus, but that does not demonstrate that they did not evolve from them, as we did back in Africa. But your date for divergence is pretty wild, as 2 m.y. ago is more the time of Homo habilis, not Homo erectus, which were closer to 1 m.y. ago, but took some time to spread to Indonesia (Java Man), what with the ocean going up and down. There are too few fossils to trace them. What about Homo pekinensis, which is considered a form of Homo erectus but only about 500,000 yrs old; too bad the Japanese denied us of their fossils. I think cross-breeding between H erectus and H sapiens most unlikely, in fact I don't think we even existed contemporaneously, ever as the first H sapiens did not predate ~200,000 yr ago, by which time H erectus wa probably extinct, or we made them extinct when we emigrated from Africa about 80,000 yrs ago. The Toba super-volcanic explosion almost made us extinct, and would surely have extinguished any remaining H erectus. For this reason I don't think H floiensis is likely descended from H erectus, but may have snuck over after Toba. But then considering that the Neandertal ancestry split off from ours about 500,000 yrs ago, it might seem unlikely that we could interbreed with them either, yet the evidence is that we did, as in the old multi-frame cartoon, "Gum gissa grl". Neanderthals and we had evolved through a process of parallel evolution into rather similar phenotypes, but genotypes? One may well wonder. Anyway, this is a very rich field for future research so that we may not be able to forget about Weidenreich after all, except for our own origins. Right now, everyone is only guessing, including me, so don't be too sure of yourself. More fossils may well be discovered to toss us all on our butts. > Gary Stein > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >>jimbat > >> Races, or sub-species "are real" in the biological world in general. > >> Just not in modern, living humans. Sub-species is a very specific [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > genetic difference is a mere 1.5% or so. I don't think either of their > > genomes has been sequenced yet, but I hope soon. Note I wrote "intra"-species, not "inter"-species. We're talking about genetic variety within a species, when we're looking at "races" or sub-species. Alex >>>>Races, or sub-species "are real" in the biological world in general. >>>>Just not in modern, living humans. Sub-species is a very specific [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Note I wrote "intra"-species, not "inter"-species. I can read. So much the worse, as different species almost always have more difference in their genomes than subspecies. Aqua, I know your frontal lobes glow, if sometimes at low wattage other times at high, but this is an extraordinary CYA statement. > We're talking about genetic variety within a species, when we're looking > at "races" or sub-species. Duh! NSDT. I seem to know a lot more about it than you do, so show some respect. jimbat
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.