Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 231 posts

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#81

Post by rootusrootus »

nhchris wrote: post #49
viewtransform wrote: post #30

More than a decade ago I submitted my DNA to the National Genographic Project [1] which was an attempt to trace ancient human migration using Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA from a sampling of people around the world. My paternal Y-chromosome line showed an ancient mutation (>50K year ago) carried by humans who had likely spread through a coastal migration from Africa around coasts of the Arabian Sea down to South…

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism and previous simplistic pre-scientific classifications based on skin color and facial features Does it? Because most studies find that people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries, roughly according to what you would expect from ge…

> most studies find that people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries

I'm surprised that anyone would really think otherwise. There is so much obvious similarity between people in different countries (well, the old countries, I mean, such as in Europe and Asia) that sometimes I wonder if each country has a relatively recent common ancestor.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#82

Post by asveikau »

nhchris wrote: post #67
ImaCake wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ppl in the same country have more similar genomes. But modern population genetics has found that 1. There is more similarity than difference between any 2 humans on earth (there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry. And, 2. People move around, a lot! We knew this already but there are a huge number of undocumented migrations that are being revealed by these studies…

> there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry You're probably referring to the "greater variation within than between races" argument. But it's only true when looking at single genes, not collections of genes - that is how genetic tests can accurately determine race. And most traits are polygenic, so it does not even make sense to compare using only individual genes. Tha…

You're talking about averages. The idea that "genetic tests can accurately determine race" kind of falls apart when you apply it to an individual with mixed ancestry. You can probably detect and quantity the extent of the mix (which is why 23andme or ancestry can make money), but labelling a bunch of averages as "race" and arguing that there is an innate and immovable property of biology seems like there's something you're missing in drawing these correlations. You can start at a conclusion and show all sorts of correlations given enough data, but it doesn't give validity of how this is somehow the right way to look at it.

And that's not even getting into how you're giving off creepy eugenicist vibes.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#83

Post by zmalqp »

ImaCake wrote: post #56
nhchris wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism and previous simplistic pre-scientific classifications based on skin color and facial features Does it? Because most studies find that people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries, roughly according to what you would expect from ge…

Yes, ppl in the same country have more similar genomes. But modern population genetics has found that 1. There is more similarity than difference between any 2 humans on earth (there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry. And, 2. People move around, a lot! We knew this already but there are a huge number of undocumented migrations that are being revealed by these studies…

Lewontin came to that conclusion by examining exclusively blood type alleles, which was kind of asinine because they have no apparent geographic distribution pattern at all. Other genetic markers tell a much clearer story, as the principal component analysis shows. It couldn't really be any more obvious - the PCA makes a map. You can literally see each of the continents represented in a projection of genetic data.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#84

Post by s1artibartfast »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #59
ajross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm saying the place to have that fight is with the putative Aboriginals and not here on HN where everyone is just talking about the science. I mean, I get it. People are mean. People are unreasonable. Lots of good discussion can't happen because people are mean and unreasonable. But you're not making things better by assuming bad faith and throwing shade at everyone else preemptively. That's just being mean and…

No reason to say that though. The person you replied to was saying it is a shame it is an emotionally charged discussion and he is right. That one particular discussion on HN might not be emotionally charged doesn't negate his point. Were you just pretending not to understand?

The best way to get an emotionally charged discussion on Hacker News is to put a caveat that it's unfortunate that a topic is emotionally charged. It's a lightning rod and discussion bridge for people who just want debate controversial issues. I certainly have been on both sides of it.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#85

Post by astrange »

nhchris wrote: post #49
viewtransform wrote: post #30

More than a decade ago I submitted my DNA to the National Genographic Project [1] which was an attempt to trace ancient human migration using Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA from a sampling of people around the world. My paternal Y-chromosome line showed an ancient mutation (>50K year ago) carried by humans who had likely spread through a coastal migration from Africa around coasts of the Arabian Sea down to South…

> As we gather more data our understanding of human migration inevitably clashes with identity politics/nationalism and previous simplistic pre-scientific classifications based on skin color and facial features Does it? Because most studies find that people living in the same country are indeed more closely related to each other than to people of different countries, roughly according to what you would expect from ge…

And it doesn't matter, because if you have mixed-race children then it's not true anymore. Past statistical distributions are not evidence of future statistical distributions.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#86

Post by Zurrrrr »

Jedd wrote: post #78
Zurrrrr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you have to look up the name of the author of Sapiens or you have it committed to memory?

I enjoyed the book, though I used the audio version which I suspect skews my opinion upwards. Thoroughly enjoyed it, but I understand some HNers have cause to argue with some of his conclusions. Anyway, I looked up the author's name as I didn't trust my memory. Does this affect your interest in the book?

No it's on my list to read, I was just curious if you had looked it up or memorized the name. Just a random passing thought I decided to turn into a comment. Thanks for answering!

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#88

Post by astrange »

asveikau wrote: post #82
nhchris wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry You're probably referring to the "greater variation within than between races" argument. But it's only true when looking at single genes, not collections of genes - that is how genetic tests can accurately determine race. And most traits are polygenic, so it does not even make sense to compare using only individual genes. Tha…

You're talking about averages. The idea that "genetic tests can accurately determine race" kind of falls apart when you apply it to an individual with mixed ancestry. You can probably detect and quantity the extent of the mix (which is why 23andme or ancestry can make money), but labelling a bunch of averages as "race" and arguing that there is an innate and immovable property of biology seems like there's something…

[flagged]

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#89

Post by vkou »

pantry-man wrote: post #76
ChickenNugger wrote: post #44

The only interesting thing I know about Aborigines is they're the only known people who didn't invent the bow and arrow. As a hobbyist archer this is fascinating to me. They apparently didn't need it, as they're still around.

They're also the only culture to invent the boomerang which is a weapon that comes back to the thrower. Pretty cool if you ask me

Returning boomerangs were unlikely to have been used as weapons.

Re: Aboriginal Australian genomes reveal Indian ancestry (2013)

#90

Post by elliekelly »

Jedd wrote: post #33

It's an emotionally charged subject, which is unfortunate as it's objectively fascinating from a purely historical perspective. The simplified and (generally) commonly accepted narrative is that a cohesive group arrived here 45-60,000YA, lived peacefully and in harmony with the land right up until Europeans arrived. There's some debate about the megafauna extinctions, but no conclusive evidence either way. (I did app…

It’s my understanding that while Harari’s books are fascinating and entertaining reads they’re mostly pop-science and lack much actual science. He’s a good storyteller but he presents his stories as though they’re fact when they are, at best, conjecture.
Post reply on HN