Live data from Hacker News

Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

sciencebulletin.org

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#71
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the genetic differences between races are far smaller and more blurry than most people would imagine (based on differences in appearance). The Atlantic had an article about exactly the kind of thing you're taking about, and how this kind of pseudoscience is being pushed by neo-nazis and the alt-right: http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/510962/

Thanks for once again proving that nobody can ever have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity because someone will always jump up, point at them, and scream "racist". I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because the…

To be honest, it's equally difficult to have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity when people insist on using an interesting piece of research as a launchpad to make tangential and evidence-free claims that social science is harming serious research, regardless of whether they actually harbour any sympathy for the viewpoints of your garden variety racist or not.

At the time of this article only two of the many subthreads related to this article had descended into politics and name-calling. One was initiated by your very own unsubstantiated attack on "identity politics". The other (considerably less favourably-received) post was claimed the notion of a social element to race that was the work of "lunatics and agitators seeking to attack and disrupt western society" and argued the researchers were doing themselves and society a disservice by engaging with it. Remind me who it was that's putting a negative slant on useful medical research again.

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Race" has 2 meanings. 1. Race as a social construct. It does exist in that capacity - as an extreme example Irish were not considered "white" in America (google for some "hilarious" images from "back in the day"). 2. Race as a biological reality. This is a touchy subject for a variety of reasons. But that doesn't mean that well documented taxonomic differences between human races are "fake". They do exist and are mo…

What does it mean for "race" to be a "biological reality"? Interpopulation diversity of both phenotype and genotype isn't remarkably different from intrapopulation diversity. There are no genetic markers that taken together say "this person is black" or "this person is white". The concept of race was never grounded in real science and its proponents constantly change their justifications after the fact. At one point…

"Race" is more of a sociopolitical idea with a particularly noxious history, but human groups with differentiable shared recent ancestry - while fuzzy - do exist. Because "race" can be described as a continuous distribution, it helps to think about it probabilistically: there are no "definitely Caucasian" SNPs, but we do have suites of what we call Ancestry-Informative Markers that can be use to infer the likelihood that someone belongs to a particular ancestry group. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the polymorphisms associated with pigmentation are informative in this regard. The fuzziness of the continuum means that it is quite possible to define an arbitrary number of "races", depending on your chosen criteria. And admixture at multiple points in history further complicates the picture. But it is possible to discern biogeographical mappings within a generous error margin. As the parent poster points out, these mappings sometimes conflict with the those that we've constructed out of ideological convenience.

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#73
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one paper. By southern African I do mean Khoisan as well as related peoples. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953791/

Would the layman consider Khoisan and Bantu people to be of the same race? I mean after learning about the existence and names of both of them. I am a layman who knows next to nothing about genetics, but a bit about Africa, and I would not consider the two peoples to be in the same race. They look completely different - which is what most laymen use to determine race, isn't it?

I think a layman, at least in the US and countries that define race in similar ways as it is defined in America, would consider Khoisan and Bantu people the same race (black), even if they knew they were different groups. African Americans in the US often look different but are all considered "black".

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean for "race" to be a "biological reality"? Interpopulation diversity of both phenotype and genotype isn't remarkably different from intrapopulation diversity. There are no genetic markers that taken together say "this person is black" or "this person is white". The concept of race was never grounded in real science and its proponents constantly change their justifications after the fact. At one point…

>>>What does it mean for "race" to be a "biological reality"? to quote my own post - well documented taxonomic differences between human races.

At what point does someone become "black" or "asian"?

Or are you talking about biological differences as they correlate with geographic locality?

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#75
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>What does it mean for "race" to be a "biological reality"? to quote my own post - well documented taxonomic differences between human races.

At what point does someone become "black" or "asian"? Or are you talking about biological differences as they correlate with geographic locality?

You can play Sorites Paradox[1] with anything; doesn't mean the categories don't exist, or that they don't carve reality at important joints.

"Heaps don't exist because you can't prove an ironclad boundary between heaps and non-heaps."

"Tallness isn't a thing because you don't have a firm, binary definition of when someone is tall."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#76
post #55
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am arguing against ignoring the fundamental principle about one-way flow of information DNA->RNA->protein which makes life sustainable. Anything which contradicts with this principle is plainly nonsense - a product of unconstrained imagination. BTW, any changes which could be propagated through the mother's body, the way some deceases do, would not get into the DNA. This is another fundamental principle which contr…

See my comment above. DNA can be commented in/out during an organism's lifetime. And these comments/silencing capabilities are in fact transferable to a child with some fidelity. And in that way those changes are heritable and genetic, if not actually altering the DNA of the child in any way. This capability is called epigenetics. You are correct that the code of the DNA itself is not being altered, but there are oth…

With generational time of almost 20 years?

What you are taking about is an ordinary blood-borne sexually transmitted decease model (or a virus), and it has nothing to do with genetics (gene expression is a developmental topic), so there will be no "marks on a DNA" in principle - it does not work that way.

There, however, could be some certain proteins bound to DNA, but it is a not a genetic but biochemical (pathogenic-like) change. Those proteins could be treated as markers.

The propagation rate of such proteins is still limited by the generation time, so any connection to cultural differences is nonsense.

So, it is not genetic, there is no marks on DNA, it is not cultural. Period.

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#77
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. I mean... You're the one saying it's well documented and well studied. Are you going to prove your assertion?

If someone were on Hacker News trying to insist that they had violated the laws of thermodynamics or invented a perpetual motion machine, I would not be called upon to prove those laws. Race is a crank theory. It is a most pernicious crank theory because it is tied with some of the greatest brutality the world has ever seen. You have the Internet. Go use it. It is preposterous to give racists the benefit of the doubt…

Hacker news is a racist cesspool, don't expect to not get downvoted for stuff like this :(

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#78
post #76
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my comment above. DNA can be commented in/out during an organism's lifetime. And these comments/silencing capabilities are in fact transferable to a child with some fidelity. And in that way those changes are heritable and genetic, if not actually altering the DNA of the child in any way. This capability is called epigenetics. You are correct that the code of the DNA itself is not being altered, but there are oth…

With generational time of almost 20 years? What you are taking about is an ordinary blood-borne sexually transmitted decease model (or a virus), and it has nothing to do with genetics (gene expression is a developmental topic), so there will be no "marks on a DNA" in principle - it does not work that way. There, however, could be some certain proteins bound to DNA, but it is a not a genetic but biochemical (pathogeni…

You are falling into a linguistic trap. The idea of a 'gene' 150 years ago was a "unit of heritable information". We didn't actually know how that information was stored - but we knew it was there (see Mendel's pea pod experiment). In the last 70 years it was elucidated that the primary heritable material was DNA. And so the older term 'gene' became convoluted with a newer concept of DNA. There is currently no good physical definition of a 'gene' - is it the expressed protein, the region required to express the protein, does it include introns, exons, etc? And so other terminology has been adopted. A 'gene' is not just a strand of coding DNA, and technically can include any 'heritable information' - though the primary and most common concept of a gene is a strand of protein-coding DNA, though most biologists would also include the upstream/downstream regulation of that coding sequence in the definition of the gene (promoter, terminator, introns, exons, etc.).

The methylation of histones (one type of epigenetic modification) which is a chemical modification of a protein bound to DNA is absolutely a heritable modification, and thus is technically a component of your 'genetic information' - but it itself not DNA. Regardless of terminology, a histone's chemical marks (and biochemical/phenotypic effects) are capable of being transmitted between mother and child, as well as between mother cell and daughter cell. If cell A switches from being heat-sensitive with respect to X, to no longer heat-sensitive with respect to X because a particular promoter was silenced by a histone modification, that phenotype will be passed down to the all of cell A's children (including gametes). That is absolutely a heritable genetic characteristic that has nothing to do with the editing or sequence of DNA.

This gets confusing because now our newer definition of gene, which was simplified to be synonymous with coding DNA, actually is more complicated.

Finally, gene expression is not just a developmental topic. Gene expression is not only what determines how you develop, but everything else in your body too. Gene expression is how your stomach determines how much enzymes to produce in a given hour, how your white blood cells determine which antibodies to produce in a given season, how your brain determines which neurotransmiters to produce in a given hour, how your skin determines how much pigment to make, how your beta cells determine how much and when to produce insulin, or how your body keeps track of its circadian rhythm, among everything else your body does. Gene expression is one of the primary mechanisms of bioregulation - especially for biological changes that take between a few hours and a few generations.

I do not understand your discussion of disease models/virus/pathogens. I'm unclear how those concepts are relevant here.

A hypothetical cultural example: A young boy is not well fed and eats a lot of a certain kind of hard-to-digest plant in place of meat. That young boy's own gene regulation may shift towards those enzymes which can break down that plant material and away from genes used to metabolize meat. Further, the entire metabolism may slow because of his cultural environment. It is very reasonable that those regulatory modifications to his own metabolism will be passed to his children. Not changes in the sequence of DNA, but heritable genetic regulation none-the-less. The effects are subtle, and can likely be relatively quickly overcome were the child to experience a significantly different cultural environment.

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#79
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for once again proving that nobody can ever have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity because someone will always jump up, point at them, and scream "racist". I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because the…

To be honest, it's equally difficult to have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity when people insist on using an interesting piece of research as a launchpad to make tangential and evidence-free claims that social science is harming serious research, regardless of whether they actually harbour any sympathy for the viewpoints of your garden variety racist or not. At the time of this article only two…

I'll admit my snipe at the end about identity politics was inflammatory, but it's specifically because of my frustrations trying to have any sort of serious discussion about these types of topics. People immediately throwing out the racist card and comparing you to neo-nazis for wanting to discuss the topic is /exactly/ what I mean by "identity politics" although its just one of the more pernicious subsets. My attack on "identity politics" is substantiated by my own experiences and a significant body of philosophical work, but probably this is not the appropriate forum for it.

As a side note, when I started my thread there were more than 60 upvotes on the article and no comments. At least there's a discussion.

Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone were on Hacker News trying to insist that they had violated the laws of thermodynamics or invented a perpetual motion machine, I would not be called upon to prove those laws. Race is a crank theory. It is a most pernicious crank theory because it is tied with some of the greatest brutality the world has ever seen. You have the Internet. Go use it. It is preposterous to give racists the benefit of the doubt…

Hacker news is a racist cesspool, don't expect to not get downvoted for stuff like this :(

It's usually a lot less overt than this, even on articles that touch on racialized topics.
Post reply on HN