digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New Genetic Breakthrough Rewrites the Human Genome Rules

news.independent.co.uk — Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • derek.curry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11From the article:
    "The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin."

    People keep saying there is no biological basis for "race" and it is merely a cultural construct, yet articles like this suggest otherwise.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"People keep saying there is no biological basis for "race" and it is merely a cultural construct, yet articles like this suggest otherwise."

      Of course there are races in our specie. But that has nothing to do without each person's value. Except for africans. They have usually longer... uhm... resistance in races! Damn...
    • spindrift, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Funny, nothing I've read ever really contradicted the whole biological basis for race thing - with different conditions in different parts of the planet, natural selection would definitely make some groups of people more immune to certain things, better at certain things that other groups didn't need to do, et cetera. What's crummy is using those varying traits as a basis of judging the worth of a human being.

      I'm descended from European/Sicilian stock, so a lot of my ancestors either sat on their pasty asses and made their peons work, or were busing inventing the Mafia. Around the same time period, a lot of African-Americans had ancestors who lived in a climate and culture where the strongest, fastest, and cleverest hunters were heavily favored. (EDIT: and uh apparently longest too.)

      If we're gonna play the race=worth game, as far as I'm concerned, I'm sitting on the bottom of the pile. But no, it's not entirely a social construct.
    • DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Only people who are insecure about their race say that. Everyone knows race exists, there has been a lot of mixing and since humans were nomadic the racial differences appear to blend from 'South to North' for example, but no one can deny the huge difference, including physiological differences, between, say, black and white for example.

      Anyone who thinks there's no such thing as race is simply trying to be part of the whole politically correct agenda going on: the same one that tries to say homosexuality is natural or normal (when science has proven it is in fact a mental disorder - imbalance of hormones) and the same people who say jews are a religion (when they are in fact an ethnic group as well and always have been).
    • bkemper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nobody is denying that there are biological differences between races such as blacks and whites. Skin color, after all, is a biological trait. The point is that the genetic variation between races pales in comparison to the genetic variations within a race. So much so that saying "race" based on such superficial differences as skin color implies that races are like sub-species, and they clearly are not.
    • W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2That's funny cause I just went to a lab headed by Dr. Hammer (I could write a page on his credentials so I'll just link to a small description http://www.familytreedna.com/about.html )

      And according to him, and every accredited scientific journal in existence, we are 99.9% alike.

      So why wouldn't I trust an accredited Science Journal over a piece of ***** news paper that isn't written by a scientist and doesn't even have any sources to site?
    • DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You wouldn't, because you don't know how to read. The article states something very simple, even a chimp could understand how that simple tiny shift in reading sequences could change the percentiles. Of course that is too much to ask of someone like you, who thinks this is some type of bigger change or a breakthrough finding on something new that was never seen before when it's not. Just a new way to read the sequences.

      It also sites exactly who they are, teams from particularly noted Universities. It is a breaking discovery meaning the scientific journal hasn't been released yet with everything detailed. Please get a brain.
    • W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The research may be real but the assumptions taken by the writer I do not believe.
    • macatak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dogmatic atheism

      homosexuality is not natural? because of an "imbalance of hormones"? of course its natural, it happens naturally. Attempting to correct this "imbalance" is the unnatural thing.
  • endgame, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Wow, GOD really did make us VERY complex & different after all.


    Ok, mod me down......Secular Progressives.....
    • lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1man, I am a Christian in every right but read your text, buddy.

      "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial"
    • spindrift, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Wasn't gonna, but taunting makes it so much easier.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Some people put their ignorance in an altar, and call it "God"
    • bkemper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Wow, GOD really did make us VERY complex & different after all."

      According to the article, we are still 99% identical, just not 99.9%. I would hardly call that "VERY complex & different after all". Ten times one tenth of a percent is still not much.
    • TyRaNNOus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Although 99% seems like not that big of a difference, its implications are huge. Differences are good though, for one it proves evolution as the human race has seperated and has been seperated for a very long time. But I think the key is to embrace our differences learn what makes us all biologically different, each race has a strong and a weak side. It's always give and take. Human's are seperated more by culture and ignorance then what is actually biologically different, mostly because the people who hate another race are simply too stupid to understand it.
  • derek.curry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The source article:

    "Global variation in copy number in the human genome"
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html
  • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, now that is interesting.
    Classic genetics makes out that duplication doesn't happen that often compared to individual base mutation.
  • gill1109, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0actually forensic DNA profiling is based on counting number of copies of little stretches of DNA which appear to have no purpose at all. because the number of copies does not give any genetic advantage, the variety can be very large, giving each of us a more or less unique fingerprint based on looking at just 14 (i believe) "genes".
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Interesting things should follow, like determining who is resistant to HIV, who is prone to alzheimers, etc etc. From there we may even find cures. Score another for science - it just keeps getting better.
  • bkemper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1--------
    The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought...
    _____

    So, instead of being .1% different from each other, we are actually 1% different. That means we are still much, much more alike than different. Still 99% identical.
    • bkemper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The article is basically talking about how genetic variation is due not only to different genes, but also to repetitions of the same genes in individuals.
  • Leathersoup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The article is basically talking about evolution. When groups of any species of animal lives in a distinctly different area, it will have a self contained gene pool which contains it's own mutations. Each group of animals will evolve slightly differently depending on what is the most successful genetic make-up for that particular area, and the end result is a genetically differing group. In some cases the genetics of the separated groups can become so varied over time that the groups can no longer inter-breed.
  • Valmorian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If anything, this HELPS the case for evolution. A common claim of evolution deniers is that mutation cannot create "new information". The rebuttal to this is that genetic duplication and mutation can bring about new traits. Here we have the potential effect that genetic duplication ALONE may result in new traits.
  • FreddieD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ugh, this article sucks. I was really hoping it would explain how Hiro Nakamura could bend time and space...
  • cc81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What I've understood it is hard to define exactly what the so called race is. For example in africa there are huge variations, even though most would just consider them "black". So I think it is easier for an amateur like me define the different races because well, they look different than a biologist that has to consider how much genetic difference is actually needed for it is to be called a race.

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.