Hungarian Sequencing Company Vets DNA For 'Gypsy Or Jew' Genes 467
ananyo writes "Hungary's Medical Research Council (ETT), which advises the government on health policy, has asked public prosecutors to investigate a genetic-diagnostic company that certified that a member of parliament did not have Roma or Jewish heritage. The MP in question is a member of the far-right Jobbik party, which won 17% of the votes in the general election of April 2010. He apparently requested the certificate from the firm Nagy Gén Diagnostic and Research. The company produced the document in September 2010, a few weeks before local elections. Nagy Gén scanned 18 positions in the MP's genome for variants that it says are characteristic of Roma and Jewish ethnic groups; its report concludes that Roma and Jewish ancestry can be ruled out." Adds ananyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited." Just when you think the world is too modern for such things, modernity gets hijacked by flim-flam.
Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... (Score:5, Funny)
Vampire (Score:2)
Thats Rumania, not Hungary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bela Lugosi's Dead [youtube.com]
Re:Vampire (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if by "racist" you don't mean "white person who says anything bad about someone who's not white" and consider it fairly.
Re: (Score:3)
The general consensus among my black friends is that they prefer to be referred to as black, "colored" refers to any non-white race and is too broad. As with my post above, which for some reason was modded flamebait, I'm only parroting the words of my black friends.
Re: (Score:3)
All racial terminology is arbitrary and largely based on artificial social preferences.
Why not just refer to people as "human" and be done with it?
Perhaps when you want to describe someone? It makes me laugh when people tie themselves in knots trying to describe someone without using colour - you'd use height, hair colour and style - loads of things like that. Why not skin?
Sometimes it's the clearest identifying characteristic. I've had it at work - someone has told me I need to go to another office and speak to the a guy - "Oh, the tallish one, medium build, er.. brown eyes...". He was the only black man in the office - surely that would have been
Re: (Score:3)
I also dislike the term "African American" simply because it doesn't really mean an African American; it's just vague.
Case in point: Charlize Theron. She was born in South Africa. Grew up in near Johannesburg. Became a US citizen in 2007. Shouldn't she be considered African American?
Generally, I think people should be able to call themselves anything they want.
Personally, I would like it to be descriptive - or at least - consistent.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no better option. It's the United States of America. Only one of those words makes sense to use as a national identifier.
Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a Canadian. By your definition that makes me an American.
Nah; you're a North-American. ;-)
The simplest way to explain why "American" refers to a citizen of just the one country is to consider the question "What's the only country in the world with 'America' in its name?" The English term "American" is an adjective that refers to that one country. That's why English-speaking people everywhere use "American" to refer to citizens of that country. Similarly, they use "Canadian" to refer to anything related to the country with the string "Canada" in its name.
Granted, it is confusing to have "America" also used in the names of a couple of continents. But we should be smart enough to handle that issue. This problem doesn't exist with, e.g., "Africa". It is used in the names of several countries, so when you want to talk about citizens of one of those countries, you usually wouldn't say "African"; you'd include another part of the country's name.
There have been a few attempts to coin names based on the "US" abbreviation, but that sorta flopped. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of other countries whose names (in translation) include "United States of". So "citizen of the United States" is technically ambiguous, and refers to different countries when you translate it into various other languages.
But no other country uses the character string "America" in its name, so it can be safely and unambiguously used (in any language) to refer to a citizen of just the one country.
As a hungarian (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.
Re:As a hungarian (Score:5, Funny)
I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.
Don't do that! You'll need your towel if you're going to travel!
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't (Score:5, Insightful)
If good gives up, evil prevails.
Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
+3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...
I don't think Jobbik has exactly been coy about it's platform with regards to this: they DO hate Jews and Roma. Take your thinly-veiled Godwin's law reference and stuff it up your Nazi ass.
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:5, Interesting)
+3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...
Yes, +3 informative. Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media. Only in American journalism does the term "far right" not exist. Anytime extremist parties like the National Front or British National Party are mentioned in America it is conveniently omitted that these are parties of the right.
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
If not, they probably shouldn't be labeled as a far-right party. The left-right dichotomy is about ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth. I feel as though lumping in extremist groups, which have little or nothing to say about economic policy, with other right or left-leaning groups to be a disingenuous attempt to make the more mainstream, non-extremeist parties look bad by association. Whether it's lumping in a group of racial bigots with the right or eco-terrorists with the left, it doesn't accomplish anything and just detracts from meaningful conversation by providing for easily constructed straw men for people on both sides of the isle.
That your comment has turned into the usual Europe vs. US crapfest just goes to show why lumping in extremist groups is a bad idea. It just fosters additional rhetoric and generalizations that aren't conducive for civil discourse.
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Interesting)
The left-right dichotomy is not exclusively about the means of production and distribution of wealth. It began as a divide between the aristocracy and the commoners, and what is now called "libertarian" (generally considered "right-wing" in America) was originally a left-wing position, being against the established powers of the nobles.
Re: (Score:3)
What is now called libertarianism predates anybody ever proposing progressive taxation and social services, and so cannot possibly have been a reaction to that.
Way back in the bad old days, the state was unabashedly an apparatus of the powerful to keep their position of power by exploiting the masses. This was called feudalism, serfdom, aristocracy, etc.
Then some revolutionaries had the crazy idea that the law should treat everybody as equals, give everyone the exact same rights and responsibilities, and le
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Do those parties advocate for a capitalistic society without government intervention?
Sorry, but the capitalist v socialist / privatisation v nationalisation debate ended in Europe ages ago. Everyone is more or less agreed that there's a happy medium. Only in the USA is this tedious debate still going on.
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media."(sic)
I prefer the Heinlein political dichotomy:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
There are elements of both the "far left" and "far right" which strongly support the use of state power to achieve their objectives. Was Hitler "far right" (nationalism) or "far left"(socialism)? How about Stalin?
This linear view of the spectrum of political ideas is frustrating. In the USA, people(leftists mostly) accuse those who advocate individual liberty and small government as belonging to the "extreme right". There's certainly no parallel to the "far right" who want authoritarian government to carry out their policies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
European right:
Free trade
Less government regulation (liberalized economy)
Law and order
Controls on immigration and measures to make immigrants conform to local customs
European left:
Statutory protections for workers
Individual rights
Tolerance for immigrants and respect for diversity
American right:
Homophobic, xenophobic, scientifically illiterate, market fundamentalist, religious fundamentalist nutjobs who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan even though he'd be run out of the modern GOP as the 'most radical s
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, we are on Slashdot here,
Try Finland. Do I need to specify the OS ?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, we are on Slashdot here,
Try Finland. Do I need to specify the OS ?
FFS will you stop confusing the "everything cool was invented in America" lobby with facts? Sheesh!
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Informative)
Linus was born in Finland but did the vast majority of his Linux work in the US. His family even moved to Portland, Oregon to be closer to the OSDL's Beaverton, Oregon location to do his work. As of 2006 he was only responsible for developing approximately 2% of the entire Linux OS. The kernel was developed using UNIX as the model to produce a version capable of using the different CPUs for things like the PC or phone CPUs and chip sets. He did great work but building a kernel does not make a OS, it provides the most important component but he is not 100% responsible for the Linux OS. His biggest contribution was increasing awareness of the Open Source model. He has did a lot of good work but Windows, Unix, and the Apple OS are the predominate OS systems in use today all over the world. People come to the US mainly because it offers the individual the opportunity to succeed using the resources available in the country. Most of the other countries in the world rely on stealing the technology developed in the US and re-branding it.
Nonsense? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."
These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.
It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid, and to not *care* about racial purity.
While notions of race are tied up in all sorts of political correct nonsense and/or racist stereotyping, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a certain nexus of genes that are associated with what we commonly call race, and no amount of politically correct handwaving will make the science go away. Things like sickle cell anemia are associated with people of African descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics), as is Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jewish_people [wikipedia.org]), high rates of adult lactase enzymes in people of Northern European descent, low rates of alcohol dehydrogenase in several Asian groups, and so forth.
Long story short, while the concept of race is socially constructed (what is considered "white" has changed significantly over the last 100 years), the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would kind of be like applying modern astronomy to the celestial spheres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have one picture for you: http://i.imgur.com/PTol8.jpg [imgur.com]
So much for race not existing.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
That really is a beautiful picture. It's a shame that it doesn't have any context to explain what it shows. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that it supports your position?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cline and race have the same definition, so their use is interchangeable. The general public knows what race means and not cline. So if you want to speak to the general public use race.
Re: (Score:2)
It IS nonsense that it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
In cases like the Hemmings family finding out they're related to ole' Tom Jefferson, it certainly does matter, as it sheds light on an aspect of history that is traditionally not recorded and/or talked about by historians.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't even always ethically suspicious. I'm a pasty white guy with a father from india. 2 generations from now my descendants could wonder if my father is really my father and they actually have a great grandfather from india. That could be especially important if it turns out we carry some genetic disposition to disease that would effect women, that we will never see manifest.
If you're Black in the US you may want to know what tribe or area you ancestor was kidnapped from in africa.
Testing like this can also, on a macroscopic level, pose serious questions about any notion of racial purity. This jackass in hungary may be definitely not be partially roma or jewish, but that doesn't ask what percent of the population in hungary are.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Informative)
>>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."
These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.
That's why the two statements are joined with the word "and"...
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.
Not so much, because hybridization is the norm, not the exception. That is, it is perfectly possible for a "white" person in the US to have many "black" genetic markers. My family has been in North American for over 300 years, and it would be astonishing if I didn't have some African, Jewish and Native American ancestors.
So while it is correct to say that "certain genetic markers have higher rates of association with certain socially constructed cultural groups" the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless. So it is clearly false to claim that genetic tests for "race" are "scientifically valid" (whatever that means... certainly they are anti-Bayesian, which is the only meaning "scientifically valid" should have.)
Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim that if they have just one ancestor who happens to belong to a particular socially constructed cultural group then their own racial identity is completely destroyed (ie is fragile). Since racial identity is purely a social construct that happens to be weakly associated with minor genetic variations, this is clearly idiotic.
As an example of the lack of genetic distinction between "races": both Irish and Eastern European immigrants to Canada were once considered racially distinct from Anglo-Scottish immigrants. They were literally considered "not white" (which you allude to.) Likewise, Korean and Japanese people are genetically identical, but belong to socially distinct and often mutually antagonistic "racial" groups.
Genetic differences between cultural groups may (but do not necessarily) exist. This does not validate genetic tests for "race" because "race" is a genetically meaningless concept due to the weakness of the association between cultural groups and genetics.
Re: (Score:3)
>>the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless
No, it's not. That's the point. Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.
If you can discriminate between two groups using stats, that means that the two groups are statistically distinct, tautologically speaking.
>>Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim
Re: (Score:3)
Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.
Sort of. Statistical methods are very good at assigning groupings, by definition. They're also very good at helping you win bets, develop a broad strategy and operate at a large scale. They can't guarantee that person A is race X - by definition.
And it's there that this idea of genetic race identification falls apart. The racial identity is a social construct, and to associate it with genetic markers makes it a counterproductive undertaking.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid
Judaism is not encoded in anyone's DNA. People convert to Judaism all the time, and people convert away from Judaism to other religions all the time. My great-grandfather was a blond-haired, blue-eyed German who was raised by Catholic parents, who fell in love with my great-grandmother, converted to Judaism, and immigrated to America. Unless you are one of those people who thinks that converts are not really "Jews" (which is not a position that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jewish movements [openly] accept), you cannot claim that genetic tests can reveal whether or not someone is Jewish.
A second issue with the tests is that there are several genetically distinct Jewish populations (hint: this is because genetics has more to do with geography than with religion). The Ethiopian Jews have a very different genetic "fingerprint" than European or Middle-Eastern Jews, and I am just going to go out on a limb and guess that the test performed on this politician did not include genetic markers from Ethiopia. I similarly doubt that genetic markers from Central Asia populations were included, or from controversial communities like the Lemba. Not all Jews have white skin, black hair, or prominent noses, and not all Jews have European DNA.
Re: (Score:3)
Given this was taking place in Hungary, we can use some common sense and assume they are testing to see if the guy's DNA matched markers taken from Ashkenazi Jews.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only populations you can really rule out are populations that were isolated to the point of being forgotten, like Ethiopian Jews.
Re: (Score:3)
The criterion that whoever has a Jewish mother is Jewish though is widely accepted in pretty much all of Judaism.
And it doesn't matter if you convert, you'd still be a Jewish Catholic or Jewish Atheist or Jewish Pastafarian.
I suppose these people's racial 'logic' works on similar terms.
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't matter if you convert, you'd still be a Jewish Catholic or Jewish Atheist or Jewish Pastafarian.
Not according to us Jews. I have been told by ultra-orthodox rabbis that a person who converts is considered to have been born with a Jewish soul, and just needed to find their way to the greater Jewish community. The Reform and Conservative movements are equally open minded; I grew up going to a Reform synagogue, and I never heard anyone question whether or not converts were really Jews, nor did I hear them refer to a convert's previous religion. Converting to Judaism is making a commitment to be Jewi
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they're not testing for "race". They're tasting for "racial genes", which are supposed to tell if you have any Jewish or Roma heritage.
Take a guess is that is possible. Hint: no. If you have mixed heritage, you could inherit these traits from any of the two parents, or get a mix of both. Now make such breeding to have happened many generations ago, and good luck trying to figure out now if you have any such heritage through traits or genetic testing. Chances are that even if there are an
Re: (Score:3)
>>Genetic subgroups, OK--although based on probability, yes? But does that make a "race"? Are (Ashkenazi) Jews a "race"? Are "several Asian groups" a "race"? Better to use less-charged language, don't you think?
Being afraid of language never benefited anyone.
As I said, race is a socially constructed phenomenon that *also* has enough statistical differences in the people given those labels for science to discriminate between them.
I just hate it when otherwise scientifically-minded people become complet
sort of two distinct issues (Score:4, Interesting)
1. How accurate are these tests?
and 2. How ethical is doing something like that?
I think the answer on #1 is actually more complex than this summary makes it sound. The notion of pure ethnic groups is a fiction, but you can trace some kinds of population lineages using genetic markers. That's in fact some of how we've recreated early human population movements; by estimating when in time certain markers diverged between Asian and European populations, for example, we can estimate when those populations migrated out of the Middle East / Africa area where their ancestors likely originated. The HapMap [nih.gov] project maps some more recent geographical correlations.
Re:sort of two distinct issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone with even a brief understanding of the history of that region of Europe realizes that notions of racial purity are bunk. Now it is possible that the Roma and Jews are still sufficiently genetically distinct due to lower rates of interbreeding, but the fact is that the Hungarian people are, to put it vulgurally, mongrels. Even the ancient Huns themselves were likely a hodge podge of ethnic/racial groups from all over Eurasia, and Hungary has so many layers of occupation and invasion dating back to Classical times that while we can say the progenitor population probably spoke a Uralic mothertongue, you have a wide array of later groups; early Indo-Europeans, Turkic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic and on and on. If you want to find a population approaching a full blooded Hungarian, I suggest you go to Finland.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Like the other poster said, you're wrong in your last point.
Finland almost equals Iceland when it comes to being a go-to country for genetic research on homogenous populations.
Now of course all present European peoples have many peoples behind them. But to say that Hungarians and Finns have mixed with others equally much is just wrong.
Crapola (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the rather complex history of invasions and migrations through Hungary, I can't even imagine what one would qualify as a pure Hungarian. We're not talking about largely homogeneous populations like Iceland or Norway, we're talking about a country that has been the stomping ground from everyone from Central Asians to Germans to Mediterranean types. Read a history of that region. The idea that there is any kind of true full blooded "Hungarian" is daft.
Re:Crapola (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you employed reason while looking at racist crap. Never works, trust me on that.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that there is any kind of true full blooded "Hungarian" is daft.
The point wasn't to be full blooded Hungarian. The point was to not be a Gypsy or Jew.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to go back that far, until not even 100 years ago "Hungary" was way more than modern day Hungary and people moved to and from. And not only in Hungary. The whole Balkan area was mixed and matched, including quite a bit of central Europe too.
It's especially funny when you see some right wing idiot demand that everyone who is not a "pure $insert_country" has to leave, and when you ask for his name you notice that at some point in history his ancestor clearly didn't stem from around the area...
Political agenda here? (Score:2)
Re:Political agenda here? (Score:5, Insightful)
There must genetic markers defining any racial group that physically differs.
You'd think so, but it's not actually the case. e.g. Any two black Africans are no more likely to have common DNA than any black African and a white European. Sure, they're both going to have higher levels of enzymes that synthesize melanin, but that doesn't tell you anything you couldn't determine by looking at them. Race is an false concept invented out of ignorance and tribalism.
Re:Political agenda here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, now try doing that on a large group of black africans and white europeans. You'll get a bunch of clusters, but the black africans aren't any more likely to be in the same cluster than a white european and a black african. There are going to be similarities between closely related groups, but those similarities don't match up with what we traditionally call race.
Re:Political agenda here? (Score:5, Interesting)
The DNA of Africans and Europeans/Asians differs a lot.
Very true. The DNA of any two random africans differ a lot as well.
I always find it amusing when people who don't know anything about genetics talk about it as if they do. Especially on slashdot.
Genetics is my job, bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientist, but not PI. Why would I write with professionalism on /.? Usually I'm trying to avoid doing that when I'm here.
Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.
Now, if you want to talk about whether or not an adopted Jew, or a convert, count as "really" Jewish, that gets into matters of dogma, not genetics - And don't think this extends only to the "racists" - Just as some groups would hold such ancestry against someone, orthodox Judaism considers it (specifically, matrilineal descent) a requirement.
And for the record, I consider both stances equally stupid.
Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.
Jacab was how many years ago? Maybe 5000? With an average childbearing age of 25, that makes 200 generations. Ignoring inbreeding for the moment, the number of ancestors you have doubles every generation. 2 to the power of 200 is....I don't have a calculator but it is pretty darn big, many many times the number of people there were on this planet 5000 years ago or even today.
Even if you go back a mere 2000 years ago, you have 80 generations meaning you have far more ancestors than there were people.
What this implies is that you are almost certainly the descendant of every single person who was alive and had progeny in your ancestors region 2000 years ago. You can argue that that still doesn't make you descended from certain minorities, but think about that exponential growth in ancestors again. All it takes is one foreigner to come in and mix with the gene pool. 1000 years later everyone is that foreigner's descendant. There might not have been a lot of travel back then, but there was enough.
About the only way one could reasonably claim not to have ancestors of a certain race is if that race was almost completely isolated - like the American Indians or Australian aborigines. But anyone with ancestors from Europe, Asia or Africa can be pretty sure they have Jacob as an ancestor.
Re: (Score:3)
orthodox Judaism considers it (specifically, matrilineal descent) a requirement. And for the record, I consider both stances equally stupid.
The jews believe that the savior hasn't yet come, because Jesus couldn't pass (or refused) tests in the old testament. They're still waiting for their savior, and one of those tests is that the savior will be a descendant of a particular person. If anyone here is being stupid, it's you -- there is no jewish race. Either you descended from that specific person, or you didn't.
The jewish community has maintained geneology records to an unrivaled level of detail ever since; it's at the very heart of their reli
Re: (Score:2)
Test Results (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't speak for the Roma, but on behalf of the Jewish people, I accept the results of this test. This idiot has nothing to do with us genetically. Cue other ethnic groups demanding he test himself so they can wash their hands of him as well. (Sadly, people like this take: "Nobody wants me" to be a compliment rather than an insult.)
Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-Roma racism in Europe (esp. Eastern Europe) has purely pragmatic roots. Denounce it as non politically correct all you want, but there's a strong correlation between Roma and petty criminals - especially those Roma who are identifiably Roma (i.e. wear the appropriate clothing, speak the language etc). Of course, this isn't because there is some kind of "Roma DNA" that includes some "thief gene" in it. It's because European Roma culture historically was, and to a large extent remains, conductive of pett
Hungarians are a sad bunch (Score:4, Interesting)
No monopoly (Score:2)
So are they trying to solve the Kazakh problem? (Score:2)
So why are these Hungarians trying to solve a Kazakh problem [youtube.com]?
The silver lining (Score:2)
recommend book "DNA USA" by Sykes (Score:3)
An interesting argument from Sykes is that after 400 years, some ancestors are edited out of your heritage. You can only have 50K contributors to the 25K pairs of genes you carry. And after 16 generators, some the ancestors no longer give you any genes. 400 years is 16 generations. To worry about a billion ancestors back 30 generations is not that important.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we realized we all came out of Africa, the rift valley to be more specific.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. It's been a while since then, and the interbreeding with Neanderthals that happened only to the future caucasoids and mongoloids. In particular, light-colored hair developed twice, among caucasoids and a certain tribe of pacific islanders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ananyo is bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
An X-Linked Haplotype of Neandertal Origin Is Present Among All Non-African Populations
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the interbreeding did anything to propogate the genes. Where's the neandrathal DNA in modern humans?
Congress?
Re:ananyo is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's part of us. [nature.com] I would be interested to know if white people's blond hair, blue eyes, and large noses have Neanderthal origins. After all, they lived in cold climates far longer than modern humans.
The issues from TFA shed light on a the ethical complexity of genetics. Personally, I want a copy of my genome. I have some specific health related reasons I want it, but it would be cool to do things with it, like find out roughly what percentage Native American I am (I'm at least 1/32nd Cherokee), if that's even possible. Where have my mitochondria evolved most recently? Do I have the cheating gene? [go.com]
Hungary has it wrong on two counts. First, they outlawed extracting genetic information except for health reasons. That's got to put a real damper on genetic research, and the Libertarian in me is crying foul. It's my genes, and I should be free to do what I want with them. Second, they're going after the genetics lab over this dumb law, rather than going after the MP for racist behavior. Let's hope we have more success in the US in drafting legislation to protect peoples right to genetic privacy, while giving people full access to data about themselves, and promoting genetic research.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There are still Nazi pigs in Europe
FTFY. This is just proof that idiocy knows no national boundaries - there's racist fucks in Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia, Oceania and probably even Antarctica.
Unless you can definitively demonstrate that your country has never, in all its history, engaged in any sort of ethnic discrimination (or been the victim of it)...
Re: (Score:2)
Do they really celebrate Running of the Jew in Antarctica?
[Sorry, someone had to slip a Borat joke]
Re: (Score:3)
Stop generalizing!
Americans are so stupid...
Re:But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?
I suppose this guy could claim he was trying to screen himself for something like Tay-Sachs disease [wikipedia.org] or something else genetically related to being Jewish...
But still....kinda hard to see a law like this in existance...shouldn't you be able to test yourself for whatever reason you wish?
Re:But.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?
A few months ago I was listing to NPR, and they were having this exact debate. There was a representative from the AMA arguing that ordinary people were too stupid to interpret DNA tests, and therefore they should be illegal unless a doctor requests them. So this is not just a Hungarian thing, there are plenty of Americans who also think the world is "too modern" for you to be allowed to have knowledge about your own body.
Re:But.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And as OP shows, they were right. Uneducated people cannot interpret them correctly, so instead they work their imagination, and use the tests for racial profiling and discrimination nazi-style (notably this is the CORRECT usage of nazism, as that is exactly what nazi idea was - that humans have racial elements that make them less worthy that are genetic based on race, rather then largely independent of race, such as stupidity).
Here you see the danger of ignorance at work, yet again. Saddest part is, we already have done this particular dance in the past, several times. And it never ended well. And as sad as it is, the argument that "people need to be protected from their own ignorance" appears to have merit. Though personally, I would prefer education as a solution rather then enforcing ban on exploiting ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
From reading the article, I didn't see where this individual had used his own genetic results for any type of discrimination.....but he had looked into it, to see what his own racial profile was.
I do see he's a racial issues type person....but the USE of the tests for himself, didn't seem to do any harm to anyone else.
Is finding your genetic racial disposition something that in of itself is inherently wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
" I didn't see where this individual had used his own genetic results for any type of discrimination"
Perhaps you missed the part where he made it his campaign platform.
"the USE of the tests for himself, didn't seem to do any harm to anyone else."
The use of the tests was to pander to racists. Fanning the fire of racism does harm, in this case to jews and roma.
"Is finding your genetic racial disposition something that in of itself is inherently wrong?"
Probably not, but logical fallacies are:
1) Z = X + Y (lea
Re: (Score:2)
Just what makes you all so sure these guys *haven't* figured out a way to screen for racial impurities?
The well-known patterns of intermarriage between Jews and the surrounding cultures, that's what. Jews do not generally like to admit it, but intermarriage has been happening between Jewish men and non-Jewish women for thousands of years (it is actually less common for Jewish women to marry non-Jewish men). This should not be terribly surprising, since Jews rarely lived in such isolation that they had no contact with other cultures, and one of the things that commonly happens when two cultures meet up is
Re: (Score:2)
Saved my grandfather's life. By extension enabled my own to exist. Anecdotal evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I lined up a bunch of white men, would you know which ones were Jews (hint: not at all)?
Just taking some simple observations would give you an average success rate greater than random selection so your "not at all" is wrong. For instance, pick only those with dark hair. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7061-hair#anchor7)
It is also worth pointing out that there is no single Jewish ethnic group. There are Ashkenazic Jews, Sephardic Jews, Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and less known populations of Jews in central Asia and Africa. These groups have distinct genetic patterns
The fact that race may be more complicated than the common usage does not invalidate the common usage. It doesn't stop us from talking about other poorly defined groups, like "blondes" or "children" or "smart people" or pretty much anything.
Why do people insist on ha
Re: (Score:3)
You claimed that Jews are indistinguishable from any other group, but that's in fact wrong
Prove it. How will you distinguish Jews from non-Jews, other than by religion and culture?
How about if we simply use the genetic test described in the article?
As you noted there are a bunch of subgroups of Jewish people who have ancestral ties. As a result even if only due to their proximity and history there will be genetic ties as well.
Except that the Ethiopian Jews' genetics were closer to the general population Ethiopia than to any other Jewish population. So much for using genetics to test whether or not someone is Jewish.
By the way, your story of your great grandfather and your father only illustrates how races can change over time.
No, it illustrates that there is nothing genetic about being Jewish. People have converted to Judaism throughout the history of Judaism; it is absurd to think that there is some Jewish forefather or that all Jews share s
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this was just tested. But if you can handwave the results away with politically correct platitudes
I guess you have no concept of people converting to Judaism, do you? Or are you one of those people who things that converts are not really Jews?
Re:The test was not necessary (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a controversial 2005 paper [wikipedia.org] that did suggest Ashkenazi Jews may have above average math and verbal intelligence, and inferior spatial intelligence
Some 40% of Ashkenazi Jews have mitochondrial DNA descended from just four women. If those four women had DNA that encouraged above average intelligence it would be quite plausible for the same tendency to extend to a large percentage of Ashkenazi Jews.
Physical characteristics of our brains are determined to a significant extent by our genes, along with nutrition and other factors, but it is entirely plausabile that there are genetic factors that would result in above average intelligence, just like there are genetic factors that result in above average strength, stamina or speed.
Its just a matter of time before someone is going to try to genetically engineer superintelligent humans.
P.S.
Last laugh at all the people, especially interkin3tic, who fileted me on the slashdot thread a few weeks about $1000 DNA sequencing when I pointed out how neo nazi's would immediately latch on to it as a way to determine racial purity. Assorted liberals asserted that we had moved beyond Nazi's, eugenics and race and it would never happen again. I pointed out then Hungary already had a neo Nazi government going down this path again, and today here you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is only passed down from the mother, meaning it's not sexually mixed. This DNA is also ONLY used in the mitochondria, the DNA doesn't affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria. So even if there are 4 women who originate an entire ethnic groups Mitochondria it says NOTHING about the sexual mixing of regular DNA that has occurred over those generations. So not only can you say nothing about intelligence based on mDNA but mDNA is worthless for anything other than pater
Re: (Score:3)
So you have definitively established that the mitochondria has no role in the function of the brain even though neurons have hundreds of mitochondria and they are essential to meeting the energy needs of neurons.
Please do share with us your innovative research.
Re:The test was not necessary (Score:4, Informative)
Here is one of many papers, "Neuronal degeneration and mitochondrial dysfunction" [jci.org], where mitochondrial DNA does seem to "affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria".
Would you like to retract your kneejerk claim now or later?