GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2006-01 > 1137998960


From: "James Dow Allen" <>
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Date: 22 Jan 2006 22:49:20 -0800
References: <1137338990.456458.231910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <mo4ms15t5bs77ev0ds8bhs690882gdmb15@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <mo4ms15t5bs77ev0ds8bhs690882gdmb15@4ax.com>


Denis Beauregard wrote:
> ... If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
> see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
> color of skin or shape of eyes. ...
> I think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
> weddings[.] So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
> can you explain the common ancestors are so late.

An interesting paper
http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/Documents/prize.pdf
points out that some ethnic groups are not as isolated genetically as
they
appear. For examples:

Basques are often thought of as an isolated gene pool
because of the high incidence of Rh- blood factor,
but in fact other Basque genes are typical European.
The Basques did mate outside their group (perhaps
foreign gene input of .01 per generation), but retained
the Rh- factor by natural selection because mixed
Rh infants are less viable.

Similarly, the Kalahari Bushmen have genes typical for
other Africans, but retain distinct skin color and other
visible features because, when selecting foreigners
as mates, they chose ones attractive to Bushmen.

* * * * *

Regardlss of the correctness of the Recent Common Ancestor hypothesis,
I wonder which ethnic outliers pose the most trouble.
Amazon? Papua? African populations like Pygmy/Bushman?

James D. Allen

This thread: