4 ms·

context: "Going local with ancient DNA: A review of human histories from regional perspectives" (Science 5 Oct 2023) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scienc

context: "Going local with ancient DNA: A review of human histories from regional perspectives" (Science 5 Oct 2023) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh8140 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh8140 Also headline is slightly misleading, it's not 'a first': "Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation" (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9 One clear conclusion is that modern popular concepts of human racial and ethnic groups have little connection with the actual biological-genetic history of individual modern humans, they're mostly artificial (which is why claims about 'race-based biological weapons' are nonsense, for example).

wslh 3y ago
> One clear conclusion is that modern popular concepts of human racial and ethnic groups have little connection with the actual biological-genetic history of individual modern humans, they're mostly artificial (which is why claims about 'race-based biological weapons' are nonsense, for example). When you said "race-based biological weapons" you mean weapons that target specific races?
- junofan 3y ago
  Yeah 特定种族基因攻击 “specific ethnic genetic attacks.” There are some interesting documents floating around from a few years back if you’re into China-US military stuff.
- nirav72 3y ago
  If race-based targeted medical treatment is a possibility, i.e that targets specific areas of the genome commonly found within specific human groups - then why is it not possible to have a race-based biological weapon?
  - astrange 3y ago
    > If race-based targeted medical treatment is a possibility, i.e that targets specific areas of the genome commonly found within specific human groups Because this isn't possible. Some conditions are /correlated/ with some groups, under the condition that you're only examining members of that group who already have symptoms of the condition.
    - junofan 3y ago
      Dangerously false. There are differences in innate immune response with weapons potential.
  - jghn 3y ago
    For one thing because it can't be "race based": https://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html https://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscien...
    - nirav72 3y ago
      interesting read. thanks.
      - jghn 3y ago
        Ewan has a lot of discussion on the topic in other venues, including Twitter. I grabbed this one as being somewhat representative but if you find the topic interesting I'd suggest digging into his stuff further.
User23 3y ago
> One clear conclusion is that modern popular concepts of human racial and ethnic groups have little connection with the actual biological-genetic history of individual modern humans, they're mostly artificial (which is why claims about 'race-based biological weapons' are nonsense, for example). This isn't really clear at all and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, consumer DNA testing pretty reliably agrees with self-reported genealogical claims. Race has become a loaded word, but we understand population genetics pretty well and the effects of long periods of genetic isolation between different population groups are very much measurable. The claim that it's impossible to develop a bioweapon that targets some genomic pattern that's common in descendants of some formerly long term isolated population and uncommon in others doesn't appear well-supported. In fact, nature already did this herself, as is well attested by the introduction of Eurasian diseases to the Americas.
- astrange 3y ago
  > This isn't really clear at all and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, consumer DNA testing pretty reliably agrees with self-reported genealogical claims. The DNA testing is associating you with a cluster; that cluster could be any "size" and isn't based on specific patterns. (And it's fundamentally not causation; you can more or less move anywhere you want and have children with anyone you want.) There's also a selection effect that they don't show you the clusters that they can't make work. Also often not true; for fun, look at /r/23andMe for white people from Oklahoma and you'll see it's surprisingly common that their parents told them they were part Cherokee when they aren't even 1% native. Famously happened to Elizabeth Warren, but it's not just her.
  - User23 3y ago
    The causation is in the past. Up until about 500 years ago there was little to no gene flow between a number of major population groups. Obviously there has been subsequent hybridization, but we can detect that too. The largest pre-1492 hybrid groups I know of are central Asian for obvious reasons, like the Uyghur people. Last I checked you can’t legally have children with anyone you want in any jurisdiction. You have to get consent and that’s often withheld on the basis of apparent ancestry. Cultural and social factors also make it less common than it would be by random chance. Elizabeth Warren tested out something like ~1/64th Cherokee I thought? And thanks to the wonders of meiosis you could genealogically have relatively recent ancestors of some group without any genetic markers.

wslh 3y ago

junofan 3y ago
Yeah 特定种族基因攻击 “specific ethnic genetic attacks.” There are some interesting documents floating around from a few years back if you’re into China-US military stuff.
nirav72 3y ago
If race-based targeted medical treatment is a possibility, i.e that targets specific areas of the genome commonly found within specific human groups - then why is it not possible to have a race-based biological weapon?
- astrange 3y ago
  > If race-based targeted medical treatment is a possibility, i.e that targets specific areas of the genome commonly found within specific human groups Because this isn't possible. Some conditions are /correlated/ with some groups, under the condition that you're only examining members of that group who already have symptoms of the condition.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Dangerously false. There are differences in innate immune response with weapons potential.
- jghn 3y ago
  For one thing because it can't be "race based": https://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html https://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscien...
  - nirav72 3y ago
    interesting read. thanks.
    - jghn 3y ago
      Ewan has a lot of discussion on the topic in other venues, including Twitter. I grabbed this one as being somewhat representative but if you find the topic interesting I'd suggest digging into his stuff further.

User23 3y ago

> One clear conclusion is that modern popular concepts of human racial and ethnic groups have little connection with the actual biological-genetic history of individual modern humans, they're mostly artificial (which is why claims about 'race-based biological weapons' are nonsense, for example). This isn't really clear at all and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, consumer DNA testing pretty reliably agrees with self-reported genealogical claims. Race has become a loaded word, but we understand population genetics pretty well and the effects of long periods of genetic isolation between different population groups are very much measurable. The claim that it's impossible to develop a bioweapon that targets some genomic pattern that's common in descendants of some formerly long term isolated population and uncommon in others doesn't appear well-supported. In fact, nature already did this herself, as is well attested by the introduction of Eurasian diseases to the Americas.

astrange 3y ago
> This isn't really clear at all and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, consumer DNA testing pretty reliably agrees with self-reported genealogical claims. The DNA testing is associating you with a cluster; that cluster could be any "size" and isn't based on specific patterns. (And it's fundamentally not causation; you can more or less move anywhere you want and have children with anyone you want.) There's also a selection effect that they don't show you the clusters that they can't make work. Also often not true; for fun, look at /r/23andMe for white people from Oklahoma and you'll see it's surprisingly common that their parents told them they were part Cherokee when they aren't even 1% native. Famously happened to Elizabeth Warren, but it's not just her.
- User23 3y ago
  The causation is in the past. Up until about 500 years ago there was little to no gene flow between a number of major population groups. Obviously there has been subsequent hybridization, but we can detect that too. The largest pre-1492 hybrid groups I know of are central Asian for obvious reasons, like the Uyghur people. Last I checked you can’t legally have children with anyone you want in any jurisdiction. You have to get consent and that’s often withheld on the basis of apparent ancestry. Cultural and social factors also make it less common than it would be by random chance. Elizabeth Warren tested out something like ~1/64th Cherokee I thought? And thanks to the wonders of meiosis you could genealogically have relatively recent ancestors of some group without any genetic markers.