05-01-2008, 02:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+May 1 2008, 06:56 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ May 1 2008, 06:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian genome study finds ethnic difference
The largest study of genetic variation in India has found a high degree of genetic difference between Indian ethnic groups.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No1/tem...-00038.pdf
[right][snapback]81117[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've yet to read it, don't have time now, but have they taken into account that many Indian communities have long been endogamous? (Most especially various so-called tribal communities.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The largest study of genetic variation in India has found a high degree of genetic difference between Indian ethnic groups.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. And historically? Where's the point of divergence? That is, have these presently-diverse groups a strong common genetic history or does their data tell them it was always a "high degree of genetic difference" in India? Because the development of endogamous communities can explain divergence from a historically common gene pool quite easily.
The statement in quoteblocks is not really indicative of what the thrust of the paper is: everyone already knows India's gene pool has a huge genetic variation, that when subdivided it is going to be regional and then community-wise (next to also taking into account the phenomena produced by things like recent historical population shifts, like GSBs moving south or recent Sindhis moving from TSP into India). But, naturally, what they can't do is presume the existence of distinct ethnic groups in ancient history and then seek to "confirm" that by counting the <i>present</i> numbers of micro-gene pools of communities. (Obviously, because today's snap shot only shows the present state, not how it came to be.) I know this is an ultra-trivial non-point and no one could ever make this elementary mistake past ...well, past lower-level primary, but - though in the past I may have never entertained that there could be scientists out there unscientific enough to make such mistakes, with all the loaded nonsense I've now been exposed to in the last few years, I will not underestimate their penchant for taking shortcuts to get to their own pre-determined conclusions.
Guess reading the paper will answer all that. Not today though.
The largest study of genetic variation in India has found a high degree of genetic difference between Indian ethnic groups.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No1/tem...-00038.pdf
[right][snapback]81117[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've yet to read it, don't have time now, but have they taken into account that many Indian communities have long been endogamous? (Most especially various so-called tribal communities.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The largest study of genetic variation in India has found a high degree of genetic difference between Indian ethnic groups.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. And historically? Where's the point of divergence? That is, have these presently-diverse groups a strong common genetic history or does their data tell them it was always a "high degree of genetic difference" in India? Because the development of endogamous communities can explain divergence from a historically common gene pool quite easily.
The statement in quoteblocks is not really indicative of what the thrust of the paper is: everyone already knows India's gene pool has a huge genetic variation, that when subdivided it is going to be regional and then community-wise (next to also taking into account the phenomena produced by things like recent historical population shifts, like GSBs moving south or recent Sindhis moving from TSP into India). But, naturally, what they can't do is presume the existence of distinct ethnic groups in ancient history and then seek to "confirm" that by counting the <i>present</i> numbers of micro-gene pools of communities. (Obviously, because today's snap shot only shows the present state, not how it came to be.) I know this is an ultra-trivial non-point and no one could ever make this elementary mistake past ...well, past lower-level primary, but - though in the past I may have never entertained that there could be scientists out there unscientific enough to make such mistakes, with all the loaded nonsense I've now been exposed to in the last few years, I will not underestimate their penchant for taking shortcuts to get to their own pre-determined conclusions.
Guess reading the paper will answer all that. Not today though.