Dare To Look At Your Gene Pool?

Curiosity

Sept. 30, 2006, 7:03PM
Who knew I'd be so ethnic? Where my roots led me

By ASHLEY HERZOG Houseton Chronicle

The idea of taking a DNA test first came to me in August, after I read a Time magazine article entitled "Diving into the Gene Pool." The author, Carolina A. Miranda describes herself as an "olive-skinned Latina," but a DNA analysis test uncovered connections to places likesuch as Poland and Mozambique. Intrigued, I decided to order my own analysis kit from DNA Tribes, a company that promised to trace my ancestry back to ancient times.
I didn't expect my experience to be anything like Miranda's. For starters, I was fairly certain of my ethnic heritage: Irish on my mother's side, German and Polish on my father's. This genetic profile was evident both in my family's cultural heritage and my appearance: I have the fair skin and blond hair that is typical of Northern Europeans. I assumed that my DNA analysis would show strong links to Northern Europe, with perhaps a smattering of other European blood on some distant branch of
try{OAS_AD('Middle');}catch(e){}

the family tree. But like Miranda, I was in for a surprise.
The first part of the test identified "deep ancestral roots," listing the top 20 places in the world that my ancestors likely came from. I was shocked to see that my strongest genetic roots were in Spain, followed closely by the Himalayan region of India. Other top matches included Turkey, Norway, Romania and Saudi Arabia — places I'd never dreamed of identifying with. And I apparently should not waste time searching for long-lost relatives at Oktoberfest parties this year: Germany graced the bottom of the list, barely beating Northern Italy as a contributor to my genetic profile.
The second part of the test listed 20 places in the modern world where my genetic relatives are likely to be found today. Because of our shared Spanish origins, I have strong ties to the people of present-day Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina. And while the test suggested that many of my relatives — such as the Swiss and Norwegians — look like me, others bear no resemblance. Outside of the Hispanic world, my closest relatives can be found in northeast India.
My family was just as baffled as I was by the results. There are plenty of possibilities: For example, my mother's ancestors might have been "Black Celts," or Irish citizens of Spanish descent. But there are few clear answers. Without extensive genealogical research or possibly a time machine, most of my genetic connections will remain mysteries.
Although the DNA test couldn't explain how people from across the world came together to create me, a white Christian girl living in the American Midwest, it did prove many of my assumptions false. I took the test thinking that my ancestors farmed potatoes in Ireland and fought in Charlemagne's noble army, and some of them did. But others bowed to Mecca and weathered harsh winters in the Himalayan foothills. Without a DNA test, I never would have known it.
I'm not alone in my ignorance. Geneticists claim that many Americans' genetic profiles are as diverse as mine, and few precisely reflect the cultural identities we embrace.
If this is true, it raises some interesting questions.
First, what do terms likesuch as "race" and "ethnicity" really mean? Do they describe a person's actual genetic makeup, or do they relate more to social affiliations with a particular group? Since I have genetic links to several populations that are considered nonwhite, should I start checking the "multiracial" box on government surveys and job applications? These questions are difficult ones, and every answer is highly debatable.
In any case, DNA tests have proved one thing: People of different ethnic identities often have more in common than they think.
Discovering your true ancestral origins can be confusing and even painful. But it can also be the first step toward greater appreciation for people around the globe.
Herzog is a journalism student at Ohio University in Athens and a graduate of The Woodlands High School.

missile

Curiosity

WilliamAshley

Kreskin

MattUK

fuzzylogix

EastSideScotian

I dont think that we do all come from the same "gene" place. I think that there are "different" types of humans. I think that the human evolved from other things, but I think that there are more refined types of people. We are each a part of a different form of early human.

Like any other animal, it evolves to suit its surroundings. Just becuase one Dolphin looks a certain way, does not mean that every dolphin will look like it or be able to do the same things as it. BUT they are still both dolphins.

Other things include Aboriginals in Australia. They have been there for about 70,000 years. Oz has been an Island for millions of years. So, either they invented a boat thousands of years before any other human, sailed for a blinking long time and then never took to the sea again, or they have evolved there, or they have been there since the day Oz becoame an island millions of years ago.

I dont think that we all come from Mesopotamia at all. I dont think "all" life started around the Tigis and Euphrates.

MattUK

EastSideScotian

MattUK

EastSideScotian

MattUK

Curiosity

Sassylassie

humanbeing

The Neanderthal's Tale, written by Richard Dawkins and Yan Wong, taken from Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale.

Are we descended from Neanderthals? If so, they would have to have interbred with Homo sapiens sapiens. But did they? They overlapped for a long time in Europe, and there was surely contact between them. But did it go beyond contact? Do modern Europeans inherit any Neanderthal genes? This is a hotly debated issue, recently reignited by a remarkable extraction of DNA from late Neanderthal bones. So far, we have extracted only the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, but this is enough for a tentative verdict. Neanderthal mitochondria are quite distinct from those of all surviving humans, suggesting that Neanderthals are no closer to Europeans than to any other modern peoples. In other words, the female-line common ancestor of Neanderthals and all surviving humans long pre-dates Mitochondrial Eve: about 500,000 years as opposed to 140,000. This genetic evidence suggests that successful interbreeding between Neanderthals and Moderns was rare. And so it is often said that they died out without leaving any descendants.
But don't let's forget that '80 per cent' argument which so surprised us in the Tasmanian's Tale. A single immigrant who managed to break into the Tasmanian breeding population had an 80 per cent chance of joining the set of universal ancestors: the set of individuals who could call themselves ancestors of all surviving Tasmanians in the distant future. By the same token, if only one Neaderthal male, say, bred into a sapiens population, that gave him a reasonable chance of being a common ancestor to all Europeans alive today. This can be true even if Europeans contain no Neanderthal genes at all. A striking thought.
So although few, if any, of our genes come from Neanderthals, it is possible that some people have many Neanderthal ancestors. This was the distinction we met in Eve's Tale between gene trees and people trees. Evolution is governed by the flow of genes, and the moral of the Neanderthal's Tale, if we follow him to tell it, is that we cannot, should not, look at evolution in terms of pedigrees of individuals. Of course, individuals are important in all sorts of other ways, but if we are talking pedigrees it is gene trees that count. The words 'evolutionary descent' refer to gene ancestors, not genealogical ancestors.
Fossil changes too are a reflection of gene pedigrees, not (or only incidentally) genealogical pedigrees. Fossils indicate that Modern anatomy passed to the rest of the world via young out-of-Africa migrations. But Alan Templeton's work suggests that we are also partly 'descended from' non-African Archaics, possible even non-African Homo erectus. The description is both simpler and more powerful if we swtich from people talk to gene talk. The genes that determine our Modern anatomy were carried out of Africa by the YOOA migrants,leaving fossils in their wake. At the same time, Templeton's evidence suggests that other genes we now possess were flowing around the world by different routes, but left little anatomical evidence to show for it. Most of our genes probably took the young out-of-Africa route, while just a few came to us through other routes. What could be a more powerful way to express it?
So, have the Neanderthals established their right to tell a tale? Maybe a tale of genealogy if not a tale of genes.

MattUK

humanbeing

Might is good enough to show that we could be wrong. Humans tend to stick to one thing until its proven wrong.

We all believed that the Big Bang theory was right even though there were loopholes, and even though it totally fails to say what banged, why it banged, where is banged and what caused it to bang. People like Alan Guth, Seteve Weinberg, Brian Greene and Mario Livio have long since proved that our understanding was slightly misled.

In the future, you never know what will happen. Generally in scienece, its the ones who forget what we already know, and think of new things "outside the box" that change theorys.