GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-03 > 0983579546


From: "Bonner, Gregg" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Re: genetics and 'ethnicity'
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:32:26 -0500


I guess the point is partly that ethnicity can be deconvoluted by analysis
of genetics. This is a by-product of proximity effects in mating, so it
becomes less and less true as time goes on.

>>>But ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological characteristic.
There is little if any biological basis for racial and ethnic
classification.

This is a pretty good example of what the original poster may have meant
when talking about further research. While this condition does provide an
example of environmental influence on observable characteristics, it
neglects any insight into the *genetic* aspect of being susceptible to
tumorigenesis in the first place. To go just a little further for the same
purpose, let's analyze "stature" as genetically determinative. Let's say
there is this guy who is 6' 4", and who falls off a ladder at work and
injures his back so that he now is always slumped over and is 5' 6". That
would be argued to be environmentally influenced. However, he clearly was
genetically biased to get on ladders, which needn't have been the case. So I
think a hard-core genetics person could always argue that it is completely
genetic-driven, and that all things environmental are still predictable as
long as you know everything there is to know about the genetics. The end
product of this is to believe that all things are _determined_ because all
particles have a certain velocity vector and momentum.

>>>Even an individual's sex is not COMPLETELY determined by that
individual's genes. There are medical conditions in which diseases of the
mother, (for example, virilizing tumors of the ovary or adrenal glands)
result in genetic females with the appearance of males. This could NOT be
predicted on the basis of analysis of either the child's or the mother's
gene sequence.

Cheers,

Gregg

This thread: