Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Liber-AL

(71 posts)
44. Interesting thread. After a review I tend to agree with
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 08:12 AM
Apr 2012
bemildred. Her assessment is right in line with mine. Indeed, the USA is a genetic melting pot and has been for centuries. And this talk of "millions" of years in the development of specific haplogroupings seems nonsensical since all of those early hominid populations died out, leaving the world in the hands of Homo Sapiens Sapiens; who, BTW are thought to have emerged 280,000 years ago in East Africa.

Since ALL humans alive today are descendants of a mitochondrial Eve from that epochal population, it would appear that all of modern humanity started out with the same Haplogroup. I am reluctant to say "L," because I don't know what the environment of East Africa was 200,000 year ago. That factor is significant since environment is thought to be the catalyst in haplogroup mutations that deviated from the original (L?) groups as modern humans left Africa.

Complicating things further is the fact that there are two distinct sets of haplogroup markers:
one originating from a common Patrilineal ancestor and the other from the matrilineal side , each with a distinct
set of letters to denote degree of mutation. From the common ancestor's mTDNA haplogroup, thought to be L, all other matrilineal
haplogroups have been proven to be mutations

Using these haplogroupings to predict proclivity towards specific diseases in African Americans , though, may have disastrous effects since so many are of mixed genetic heritage.

As crazy as it might seem, White physicians don't seem to differentiate between near white-skinned Blacks and those who are very dark-skinned in making diagnoses and remedies. But even then, the dark skinned Black may not physically be the stereotypical genetic model used to treat ALL blacks. His ancestry may put him/her in a group consistent with that of a Native American or North European.

Perhaps, an awareness of this problem would be worthwhile in preventing medical mishaps due to race based medical procedures and prescriptions. And to make things worse, you get silly reports of "studies" like the one claiming "blacks" are more susceptible to HPV than whites. I guess bad news about Blacks sells better!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Who are Blacks? The Rugby Team? HipChick Apr 2012 #1
Ask the AP. They wrote the headline. Iris Apr 2012 #2
In the UK dipsydoodle Apr 2012 #3
It's probably the best term to use muriel_volestrangler Apr 2012 #5
"African-American" is not a synonym for "black". Spider Jerusalem Apr 2012 #6
Not all Black people live in America via Africa HotRodTuna Apr 2012 #8
Interesting. Nt xchrom Apr 2012 #4
Sex With Neanderthals: The Ultimate Immunity Boost FarCenter Apr 2012 #7
All the more reason for young people to get the HPV vaccine NickB79 Apr 2012 #9
You may want to read more before you sign your kid up for the vaccine. davsand Apr 2012 #10
I have read extensively about the HPV vaccine NickB79 Apr 2012 #11
Did you bother to READ those articles or did you dismiss them out of hand? davsand Apr 2012 #12
Relying on VAERS, are we? Watch out you don't turn into the Incredible Hulk NickB79 Apr 2012 #43
Blacks should be cautious about calls for mass inoculations. MD20 Apr 2012 #13
Technically, there are no "pure" white or black genes... antigone382 Apr 2012 #21
Race is horseshit, and therefore racial correlations are horseshit too. bemildred Apr 2012 #14
Ever heard of a caucasian getting sickle cell anemia? Beacool Apr 2012 #15
"Caucasian" is also horseshit. bemildred Apr 2012 #16
I'm not going to argue. Beacool Apr 2012 #18
OK. nt bemildred Apr 2012 #24
Look, it's like thinking if a dog has brown hair, then you know something about it's metabolism. bemildred Apr 2012 #17
If those genetic markers were not evenly distributed in all types of dogs hack89 Apr 2012 #20
Yeah, I know about that, but those are just statistical correlations. bemildred Apr 2012 #22
If I was a public health official hack89 Apr 2012 #27
The problem is that populations don't develop diseases. bemildred Apr 2012 #30
Multifactorial polygenic diseases hack89 Apr 2012 #32
Which still happens only to individuals. bemildred Apr 2012 #33
But two individuals from seperate groups may require different treatments for the same disease. hack89 Apr 2012 #35
I really think we have wrung all the juice out of this for the moment. bemildred Apr 2012 #38
Just think in terms of genetic groups and it is less of an issue. hack89 Apr 2012 #40
That's really all I'm saying, just leave race out of it. bemildred Apr 2012 #41
A very rational position... rayofreason Apr 2012 #42
Genetics determines lots of things. bemildred Apr 2012 #34
Yes they do. hack89 Apr 2012 #36
Here is the argument I'm making: bemildred Apr 2012 #39
Humans are divided into numerous distinct genetic groups called haplogroups. hack89 Apr 2012 #19
Right, and we've been mixing them all together rapidly for the last 500 years. bemildred Apr 2012 #23
Wrong hack89 Apr 2012 #25
A couple of centuries HAVE undone millions of years of evolution already. bemildred Apr 2012 #26
Except genetically halogroups are still there hack89 Apr 2012 #28
There is no evidence that any of those events have impacted the human genome. nt hack89 Apr 2012 #29
Right. bemildred Apr 2012 #31
I wouldn't say millions of years, more like about 100 to 50 thousand years ago when humans... Humanist_Activist Apr 2012 #37
Interesting thread. After a review I tend to agree with Liber-AL Apr 2012 #44
Hey. bemildred Apr 2012 #45
YW Liber-AL Apr 2012 #46
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Blacks have trouble clear...»Reply #44