The Genographic Project and the story of humans

[Guest]

.

[Soriak]

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

The National Geographic is running a project to anonymously test a segment of DNA from volunteers to trace the migration of early humans. I read about this some time ago and was reminded today when I heard of one of their findings. I just ordered their kit and figured I'd make a post about it here - in case anyone else is interested. They outline the privacy measures on their site: the lab that does the testing only knows the randomly generated ID that goes with your sample, which is never connected to you - you get a copy of it with the kit, but it'll never be recorded who is assigned which ID. (so don't lose it!)

Now to the findings: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/dawn.html

About 70,000 years ago, our species was on the brink of extinction! According to the report, there may have been fewer than 2,000 humans around!

As I understand it, humans split into small groups that went largely their own way, before coming together after some catastrophic event. (possibly a shift in the climate)

Dr. Spencer Wells, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence and Director of the Genographic Project, said: “This new study released today illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history. Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA.”

They also found that the most common female ancestor we all have in common was an African woman who lived within the past 200,000 years. About 60,000 years ago, humans began to migrate away from Africa and populated the earth.

And only a few years ago, humans started to walk on the moon and constructed a permanent presence in space. (The ISS) Let's hope it doesn't take another 60,000 years before we can set up shop on another planet Shouldn't take another near-extinction to see the need for some good, old diversification


I love reports like this hehe, it's truly amazing what we can find out today. Also encouraged me to do another loan in Africa - it's home, after all 

[Robert]

According to a Danish team of researchers, all persons with blue eye colour probably have the same ancestor. Probably there happened only once in a person a genetic mutation which led to blue eyes and all the persons now alive with blue eyes descend from that common ancestor. Lenders with blue eyes, lend to entrepreneurs with blue eyes!

[P, B and J]

Thanks for the links Soriak, I find this project fascinating!!  I remember first hearing about it a few years ago.  I was wondering if there was still a cost associated with getting the kits.  It seems to have stayed at the same amount (at least it didn't go up!).  Back then I didn't have the means for it and now I don't either.   But if and when I did have the means, I wonder what would be the final push to make me do it.  I don't think it would take much because it is really incredible as far as projects go!  But now I'm also thinking that the almost $100US could fund 4 loans too!    Still, I'm glad you posted about it here because for some reason or other I had been wondering about it very recently and just hadn't gotten around to search out what was happening with it.

I'm kind of dumbfounded and shocked when I hear someone say on TV (have never heard it in person yet) something that indicates they are not aware of our common ancestors in Africa, and usually that particular someone has prejudices regarding people of different ethnic origins.  It's sad.  We're all from the same race, the human race.  It still surprises me when someone hasn't learned, or read, or heard that yet (re. our common ancestry being African)!

Robert, did the Danish researchers mention the people with, let's say brown eyes, who have a blue-eyed parent?  My kids have brown eyes, but I have blue eyes.  So they gots the blue eye gene whether they wants it or not.  I hadn't heard about that research though.  Is it from very long ago?

~Jackie~

[Robert]

Jackie, I read on page 3 of the file that I provided in my original post: "The blue eye color phenotype was defined as a complete lack of brown pigmentation." I'm definitely a layman, but I understand that the mutated gene is in your family, but that it doesn't produce its effect with your children. Brown is normal, and blue means absence of pigmentation. However the gene will be transmitted to the next generations, which may or may not get blue eyes. The topic is much more complex than it had been believed until now ("Blue/brown eye color genetics are known to the public as school example of monogenic inheritance, however, the variation in pigment concentration and the distribution of pigment in the iris suggest the eye color genetics to be far more complex as supported by recent data.")

The study is very recent (published January 3rd, 2008). I found the link somewhere on a Danish blog, but unfortunately I'm unable to find the blog again. But I did save the file of the study on my disk.

Robert

[P, B and J]

Silly me, I didn't realize you had included that file with your post, thought it was maybe a part of your signature.  Glad it's in English because I couldn't have understood it otherwise.   Well, off to do some reading, it all sounds very interesting!  What does the word you used for the file name mean in English, if you don't mind my asking?  Thank you!!

[KivanSteven]

This is slightly off the specific topic, but probably no better place to post this on KF than here right now...but a great book, though not immediately recent, believe it was copyrighted around 2002 or so, is "Neanderthal's Necklace."  I found it extremely captivating--especially when it was stated that if Neaderthals re-produced at a 2% greater rate, or died off at a 2% lesser rate, they would most likely have survived their extinction, and I might add barring unforeseen aggression against them on our part, could continue to exist today.  Imagine another "species" of human beings existing alongside us today!  It causes one to ponder how they would be perceived socially, how we might perceive ourselves and each other socially compared to the status quo of the present--our perspectives might be drastically different, I dont know if for better or worse--as modern and progressive and evolved as we like to think of ourselves, I would actually fear for a separate and distinct group of humans because of our flawless capabilities throughout history of subjecting an "inferior" or weaker people to aggression and constantly being taken advantage of.  If Neanderthals as a species didnt pass on, we very well may have eventually insured that. 

Needless to say, it seems the only opportunity for the world to again be shared by an alternative human species is for other planets to be colonized and tens of thousands of years pass on, or to see the world revert back to 30,000BC--of course both highly unlikely anytime soon.  Based on the age of the earth we live in a very unique time, a short period of time when upon the earth a single human species exists.  When taken as a whole and comparing a world with and without additional human cousins, the previous 27k years are quite unlike the few million that preceded them.  It was hardly always like this.

[P, B and J]

Robert, I read the file.  But it was a difficult read because it's written very much for the scientific community in a specialized, technical language.  Some people would say it isn't even English!    Once again though, I am amazed at how little I know and how there is so much out there to learn!  With time and perseverence I guess one could find online articles that help teach and clarify some of the terms and notions used in the paper (and many years of schooling and training would probably help greatly as well, heheh).  I was also able to find some articles on that particular study that are more in layman terms.  There are many, I will post the 2 that I preferred for different reasons.  I didn't read all of the many that were out there though.   It's all very interesting, maybe others would think so as well? 

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 31 January 2008 08:34 am ET
http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html

More than meets the blue eye: You may all be related
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-05-blue-eyes_N.htm

The Danes who did the study even have it narrowed down to an approximate geographical location where they think the gene mutation could have happened! 

[P, B and J]

I would actually fear for a separate and distinct group of humans because of our flawless capabilities throughout history of subjecting an "inferior" or weaker people to aggression and constantly being taken advantage of.

I would fear that as well Steve.

[RichardF]

Imagine another "species" of human beings existing alongside us today!

I remember walking along the streets of New York one day and passing by a Neanderthal guy in a $500 suit (it could have been spent on a Kiva loan or two  )!  He was 5'2''ish with a slight build, strong 5 o'clock shadow and a heavy brow ridge.  From that day, I've tried to never underestimate the power of assimilation or the power of selective perception and cultural hypnosis. 
Why, just tonight, my TV was filled with vampires sneaking around L.A. in plain sight with no one else seeming to notice! 

[Robert]

What does the word you used for the file name mean in English, if you don't mind my asking?  Thank you!!

The file had already this name when I downloaded it. It means "blue-eyed".

Robert, I read the file.  But it was a difficult read because it's written very much for the scientific community in a specialized, technical language.  Some people would say it isn't even English!    

That's true! The links you provide lead to documents that are much more understandable...

Robert