3 ms·

...which has never happened in human history. Bottlenecks? Yes. Bottlenecks that selected specifically for a specific gene? No.

barry-cotter 4y ago
Tibetans and Andeans both have adaptations for living at high altitudes. The Tibetan ones are better because they come from Denisovans, predating the existence of modern humans. There’s been massive positive selection on lactose persistence. 5,000 years ago no human adults could digest lactase. The differences in diabetes among human populations track closely with length of time they have been using agriculture.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  That is not an example of a bottleneck, nor is it an example of a genetic adaptation occurring recently, as both happened more than ten thousand years ago. And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the cultural concept of race. There are people who are not "Tibetans" who have this genetic adaptation, and there are "Tibetans" who do not have this genetic adaptation. Further, the pairing of this genetic trait with other genetic traits does not exist. Having this genetic trait does not make you more likely to have a set of other genetic traits, and none of the genetic traits add up to a specific "Tibetan" set of features or traits, all of which you would need to have to be called "Tibetan". There is no such thing as "genetic race".
  - User23 4y ago
    Please stop violating the HN guidelines. I get that you're emotional about the subject and have a religious zeal for it, but that's no excuse for name-calling. There is no evidence that anyone you're replying to is writing in bad faith. They may be wrong, although you've failed to show that in any way that satisfies intellectual curiosity, but that doesn't justify personal attacks and slimy rhetoric[1]. [1] http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      It's not your job to police Hacker News. If I've violated a rule, that's up to the moderators of this site to police, not you. You are a user, same as me. I'd even argue attempting to enforce the rules as a user is a violation of those very same rules. I believe the people I'm talking to right now are supporting racist ideas and policies, and that makes those people, definitionally, racists. Including you! I apply no moral judgement to that term here; if you do not want to be called a racist, do not support ideas and policies that are racist.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the cultural concept of race. Quite true. Race is a useless and imprecise term and it’s a pity you felt the need to start talking about it. The clustering of traits among human ancestry population groups and the reasons for that don’t need that baggage.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      I didn't start talking about it, you did when you started talking about "Swedes" and "Tibetans".
stevenhuang 4y ago
It has happened countless times in history. See the sickle cell trait for instance. I feel you're unable to discuss productively on this matter because you seem to think that believing in the concept of phenotypes means support for eugenics... which no one here is advocating for.

barry-cotter 4y ago

Tibetans and Andeans both have adaptations for living at high altitudes. The Tibetan ones are better because they come from Denisovans, predating the existence of modern humans. There’s been massive positive selection on lactose persistence. 5,000 years ago no human adults could digest lactase. The differences in diabetes among human populations track closely with length of time they have been using agriculture.

TameAntelope 4y ago
That is not an example of a bottleneck, nor is it an example of a genetic adaptation occurring recently, as both happened more than ten thousand years ago. And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the cultural concept of race. There are people who are not "Tibetans" who have this genetic adaptation, and there are "Tibetans" who do not have this genetic adaptation. Further, the pairing of this genetic trait with other genetic traits does not exist. Having this genetic trait does not make you more likely to have a set of other genetic traits, and none of the genetic traits add up to a specific "Tibetan" set of features or traits, all of which you would need to have to be called "Tibetan". There is no such thing as "genetic race".
- User23 4y ago
  Please stop violating the HN guidelines. I get that you're emotional about the subject and have a religious zeal for it, but that's no excuse for name-calling. There is no evidence that anyone you're replying to is writing in bad faith. They may be wrong, although you've failed to show that in any way that satisfies intellectual curiosity, but that doesn't justify personal attacks and slimy rhetoric[1]. [1] http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    It's not your job to police Hacker News. If I've violated a rule, that's up to the moderators of this site to police, not you. You are a user, same as me. I'd even argue attempting to enforce the rules as a user is a violation of those very same rules. I believe the people I'm talking to right now are supporting racist ideas and policies, and that makes those people, definitionally, racists. Including you! I apply no moral judgement to that term here; if you do not want to be called a racist, do not support ideas and policies that are racist.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the cultural concept of race. Quite true. Race is a useless and imprecise term and it’s a pity you felt the need to start talking about it. The clustering of traits among human ancestry population groups and the reasons for that don’t need that baggage.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    I didn't start talking about it, you did when you started talking about "Swedes" and "Tibetans".

stevenhuang 4y ago

It has happened countless times in history. See the sickle cell trait for instance. I feel you're unable to discuss productively on this matter because you seem to think that believing in the concept of phenotypes means support for eugenics... which no one here is advocating for.