GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-10 > 1317851054


From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Sale and Native American mtDNA
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:44:14 -0600
References: <049b01cc8377$d8fabe40$8af03ac0$@uqam.ca><AC4D187A35EE4E43947005DDA2284D1B@kenPC><04be01cc839e$6f957900$4ec06b00$@uqam.ca>
In-Reply-To: <04be01cc839e$6f957900$4ec06b00$@uqam.ca>


I tried to state I was talking about the original genes brought to western
hemisphere, not just California or eastern USA.

This original American gene population is today dominated by Central and
South America (regions which probably dominated the pre-Columbian count,
too). Huge fractions of those genes now reside in people who may not
identify themselves as Amerindian, but rather mesitizos, mixed, etc.
The genes have not vanished. See Dawkins for a perspective which looks at
genes from their angle rather than that of the carriers.

But let's take Peru as an example. Prior to European arrival it is
estimated there were 5 to 9 million Amerindians there. Today Peru's
population is 30 million. Estimates today for Peru are 45 percent
"Amerindian", 37% Mesitozos, and rest of other ethnic/racial categories.
The pre-Columbian indigenous genes of Peru have clearly grown by a robust
multiple, any way you look at it. A similar count of genes probably exists
for several other Andean countries, and Mexico, etc.

Probably the most decisive events reducing genetic diversity (which I did
not know was the topic in any event) for the eventual Amerindians was their
origination from extremely small beginning populations entering the western
hemisphere 12,000 years ago.

In any event, I don't view intermarriage as a form of "genocide". More
probably it would turn out to be culture killing or changing? Ken










-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques P. BEAUGRAND
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Sale and Native American mtDNA

Ken

I admit my sin and apologize for having used an expression which was not at
all objective.

It is a bad habit. I usually complain about loss of biodiversity in our
environment,
why not admit loss of DNA diversity in our own species ?

As regards (I cite you) *the genes brought to western hemisphere 12,000
years ago
are now much more numerous than they would have been, left to themselves
since 1492*, what I know about Amerindian populations
is contrary to what you seem to affirm.
I think that Amerindians are less numerous today than they were in pre-C
times.
I have not recently researched this aspect though; but see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Native_California as an entrée
into the subject.

If there is a proportional relationship between genetic variability and
size of the given population carrying them,
since the Amerindian population is smaller today than it was in
pre-Columbian times,
then Amerindian genetic variability is probably reduced compared to what it
was in pre-Columbian times.
And at one time it was extremely reduced. If the Amerindian population
regenerated its effectives from a few men and women, then there
must have been loss of variability compared to what it was before 1492.

Maybe I am doing attribution here but your assertion seems to consider the
propagation of Amerindian *genes* through the interbreeding of pure
Amerindians
with Europeans and Africans (e.g. Latinos, Creoles, &c) over the past
centuries.
If it is the case, then genetic drift has to be taken into the equation,
isn't it?


Salutations cordiales

Jacques Beaugrand





-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: