Variances in skin pigmentation are the result of a number of genes, each with possible alternative alleles, that controls the amount of melanin produced. Difference in skin tone is not proof of one allele existing in one population and no other, but rather it is the result of various forms of existing genes in all humans.
Ajackson17
New member
I was only gone for one hour and ban cause a Mod thought it was funny.
For @bambu cuz I know you're lurking
"How can you not be curious about why an Asian might look different from a Caucasian or look different from an African person?" Cheng asks. "That's very interesting. You look different. Why is that?"
Cheng may have discovered part of the answer [...] His team discovered a skin pigmentation gene that, when mutated, causes the "golden" pattern in zebrafish. And then they looked for a similar gene in humans.
In the journal Science, his team reports that people do have a similar gene. In fact, there are two common versions. One showed up in almost all DNA samples taken from small groups of people living in Africa and Asia. The other version appeared in almost all of the people they tested who had European descent.
But genetic experts emphasize that this new discovery about skin color is a long way from being able to use gene tests to reconstruct exactly what a person looks like. "Having or not having this particular variant will not allow you to say what shade that person's skin might be, within anything other than very wide limits," says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. That's because skin color is controlled by multiple genes.
And Collins also worries that people will confuse skin color with race. "This is most definitely, and let me emphasize this even more, not the gene for race, which is something I've heard a couple people already say when they heard about this result," Collins says. "There is no gene for race."
Collins says the social idea of race depends on all kinds of cues beyond physical appearance and skin color, everything from your neighborhood to your family traditions to your clothes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055391
"How can you not be curious about why an Asian might look different from a Caucasian or look different from an African person?" Cheng asks. "That's very interesting. You look different. Why is that?"
Cheng may have discovered part of the answer [...] His team discovered a skin pigmentation gene that, when mutated, causes the "golden" pattern in zebrafish. And then they looked for a similar gene in humans.
In the journal Science, his team reports that people do have a similar gene. In fact, there are two common versions. One showed up in almost all DNA samples taken from small groups of people living in Africa and Asia. The other version appeared in almost all of the people they tested who had European descent.
But genetic experts emphasize that this new discovery about skin color is a long way from being able to use gene tests to reconstruct exactly what a person looks like. "Having or not having this particular variant will not allow you to say what shade that person's skin might be, within anything other than very wide limits," says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. That's because skin color is controlled by multiple genes.
And Collins also worries that people will confuse skin color with race. "This is most definitely, and let me emphasize this even more, not the gene for race, which is something I've heard a couple people already say when they heard about this result," Collins says. "There is no gene for race."
Collins says the social idea of race depends on all kinds of cues beyond physical appearance and skin color, everything from your neighborhood to your family traditions to your clothes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055391
Last edited:
For @Oceanic.......
Cuz I know you are lurking...........
Well, well, well.........
It appears that scientific discussion is unwelcome here........
"Genetic analyses can distinguish groups of people according to their geographic origin."
http://www.brandeis.edu/provost/diversity/texts/diversitypdfs/Does_Race_Exist.pdf
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
From tree to web
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
Cuz I know you are lurking...........
Well, well, well.........
It appears that scientific discussion is unwelcome here........
"Genetic analyses can distinguish groups of people according to their geographic origin."
http://www.brandeis.edu/provost/diversity/texts/diversitypdfs/Does_Race_Exist.pdf
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
From tree to web
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
Last edited:
