Genome Surprise

Catskul writes "Along with the news that the polished and (more nearly) complete human genome being published Monday, comes a surprising observation about the genome: We have substantially fewer genes than expected; between 27,000 and 40,000 as compared to an original estimate of 140,000." Update: 04/14 01:22 GMT by T : For everyone who can't look at a Z, headline updated with an S in "surprise."

Comments

French Cloners

[c4tp's friend]

This is why scientists are rebuking the French company's (Cloneaid?) claims that they have already cloned a human.

Genome Surprize

[InterruptDescriptorT]

Ingredients

1 genome (preferably human)
4 eggs
1/4 cup flour
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1-1/2 teaspoons dry mustard
1 cup cottage cheese
1 cup shredded Jack cheese
1 cup shredded cheddar cheese
3 chopped peeled green chiles
One 16-ounce package frozen hash browns
Shaker of paprika --dust top of casserole just before putting in oven - looks pretty.

Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Spray a small casserole dish with vegetable oil spray, 7 to 8 inches square or round. Line the pan with 1/2-inch layer of potatoes. Beat eggs. Add dry ingredients and beat well. Blend in remaining ingredients. Batter will be lumpy. Pour in dish and bake 25-30 minutes.

Serves 4.

Re:Genome Surprize

[Anonymous Coward]

Then a little Essence...

BAM!

Kickin' it up a notch!

Re:Genome Surprize

[BitHive]

Unless you prepare your food in a cleanroom, I suspect that every dish you prepare has at least one copy of a human genome in it, if not more (not to mention the genomes of other organisms). . .

Re:Genome Surprize

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more like

1/4 Serving freeze-dried brain
2 Testicles for bragging rights
5 cups fat

Mix together with 4 part stupidity and 3 parts ego and you have today's modern man.

Re:Genome Surprize

[SomeGuyFromCA]

No, that's how you make beef jerky.

Re:Genome Surprize

[DavidLJ]

Not enough there to feed four -- but definitely a superb bit for two.

To feed four, forget the baking powder, but add four whipped egg whites, perhaps with a pinch of cream of tartar to help stiffen them to good peaks.

Serve with Champagne as the Sun comes up after a night on the town.

Sobstantially fewer?

[einhverfr]

We have substantially fewer genes than expected; between 27,000 and 40,000 as compared to an original estimate of 140,000."

What 140,000 +/- 113,000???? that seems a bit bigger.

What I want to know is if these are counting genes which are active in humans (i.e. activated by master genes) or are inactive genes (say for a monkey-like tail ;-)) counted too?

I suspect I should spend more time reading the article :(

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of those oddities like tails are awfully curious to me. They're only somewhat inactive and are expressed in some people, and carry on down through their offspring - are they then really 'inactive' in the whole human scheme of things. ie some theoretical gene for "tail" or "no tail" for example, which is active would create a tail when present or not. But some fully inactive ones like "feathers" or "no feathers" which aren't used no matter what their state.

I'd see genes like those for a tail as being awfully rare, but not completely inactive

Now I don't know what the point of my post is. I think I wanted to talk about tails as I always wanted one when I was little. Instead I got some extra vertebrae, ribs, and a couple of mirrored organs.

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to like my monkey-like tail thank you very much!

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[morgajel]

I don't know but I'm all for bringing prehensile tails back into fashion!

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"monkey-like tail"

I can't wait to use my Kamahamaha move.

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[JDWTopGuy]

I don't have a monkey-like tail, you insensetive clod!

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[whereiswaldo]

We have about as many genes as a mouse... but is the mouse _using_ all of its genes? Maybe the mouse is like a souped up Pentium 4 running WordPerfect 5.1 under DOS... and we're like the same Pentium 4 running AutoCAD under Windows XP.

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were smart to post as an AC, because otherwise I would gladly hunt you down and set you on fire, both for the incredible sadness of the reference, and the fact that you managed to misspell the word.

Re:Sobstantially fewer?

[Mr. McGibby]

What I want to know is if these are counting genes which are active in humans (i.e. activated by master genes) or are inactive genes (say for a monkey-like tail ;-)) counted too?

IANAG(Geneticist), but I would guess that they're counting hypothetical genes since determing if some gene is expressed is WHOLE LOT more work that sequencing it. So your tail-gene would be counted. However, genes that aren't exressed tend to mutate over time and can be recocgnized as such.

g@h

[Anonymous Coward]

i see that my genome at home work is paying off...

Re:This is Great

[buyo-kun]

I mean less of a person to hate...

Intelligence fading....

oog....

42....

I thought so.

[Capt'n Hector]

We are simple creatures, no doubt. But the number of genomes does not point to our complexity. Rather, these genomes could be incredibly complex, controlling all sorts of things. They could intermingle, with no clear linear relationship between a single function and a single genome. It would have been easier to decode had there been more, because now it is clear that these genomes are more complex than originally thought.

Re:I thought so.

[glwtta]

Frankly, I would have more faith in your scientific reasoning if you knew the difference between a gene and a genome.

Re:I thought so.

[Capt'n Hector]

oooh, harsh man, harsh. But you do understand my point? Replace the word "genome" with "chromosome" in my post. There are so many words to keep track of, do you expect me to get all of them right? And frankly, I didn't ask you to have faith in my scientific reasoning, as that post was in no way intended to be scientific. Please keep your insults to yourself.

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it wrong again dude! Even with
"chromosome" it sounds like you don't know
what you are talking about. And plus, that guy
was hardly insulting you. He just said that
he wouldn't buy your argument cause it sounds like
you don't know the science.

Re:I thought so.

[drooling-dog]

The previous response notwithstanding, you're absolutely right. We're more complex than, say, an earthworm not so much in the number of our genes, but rather in the number of ways that they can be expressed. There are complex regulatory networks, messenger RNAs (the intermediates between genes and their protein products) can be spliced in various ways, etc. It's all very fascinating and mind-boggling, and a hell of a lot more complex than the genome sequence itself can reveal directly.

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

Yeah, I was astonished at the stupid claims being made in the article based on this percieved lack of genes.

The small number of genes is significant [because it means] we're not hard-wired

It means no such thing! It could just mean that fewer genes are necessary to hard-wire us. Nobody really knows how much effect particular genes have on us, so saying that 140,000 would be enough but 40,000 isn't enough is just spewing hot air.

The low number of genes means humans have as few as 300 more genes than a mouse and only twice the genes of the fruit fly. "A lot of people will find that philosophically disturbing," says theoretical biologist Jean-Michel Claverie

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule? How about "better genes == more superiority"?

The low number of genes [means] that there is no genetic basis for race.

Totally not true. Of course race has a genetic basis. It is inherited, after all. Black people have black children. It just means that the number of genes necessary to determine race is smaller than we thought.

...how have we become so much more complex than other creatures, whilst having relatively few extra genes.

I don't think it's any mystery. We're NOT "so much more complex!" The only part of us that is more complex is our brains. And animals have brains too, some of which are quite sophisticated by any measure of complexity.

Looks like people are having a field day speculating about what this low number could mean. I think it just means that we were wrong before, and we still don't have a clue about how big an effect single genes can really have on an organism.

Re:I thought so.

[NedTheNerd]

this is a little off topic but jsut a small fact (taken from the discovery channel) it takes roughly 20,000 years for the evoloution of white skin to black skin and vise versa. the further north you move the lighter your skin gets and is allso reduced in the amount of "natural sun screen" you skin has. and it was allso sugested that maybe the first humans where black because the harsh adaptation required to live in winter climates.

Humans have allways been good at explaining why they are the better than someone/thing else

when was the last time you time you heard about a chicken that came home and beat the sh*t out of his hen? you dont see a chicken hooking up another guys nuts to a car batery do you? no because chickens are decent people!

"A year spent in artifical inteligence makes you consider more about religion"

Re:I thought so.

[hamanu]

When people say race has no biological basis what they mean is not that blue eyed parents won't have blue eyed children, what they mean is that the choice of what physical characteristics constitutes a race has no biological basis.

As proof: I am considered a member of 6 different races acording to 6 different cultures. The fact that y'all racially pure people can't agree on what race I am proves that the choice of features that delineate races is completely arbitrary, and hence race has no biological basis. QED.

Re:I thought so.

[rsidd]

Worse and worse. Chromosome? We have 23 pairs of chromosomes, no more, no fewer. That's been known for ages now.

What was your point? That you're pontificating without even high-school knowledge on the subject?
Well I suppose that's par for the course on slashdot.

Re:I thought so.

[JDevers]

Actually no, still wrong. A genome is the entire complement of genes an organism possess, a chromosome is a relatively arbitrary unit in which the genome is broken into. I doubt any scientist ever suggested that "more chromosomes=more complex" seeing as how most higher plants have significantly more chromosomes than any animals. A gene on the other hand is a functional unit, it can code for one or more proteins but they have a well known beginning and end (both to us and to the transcription machinery). These three words are about as non-exchangable as three words can be. You noted you weren't "intending to be scientific", however you were commenting on a somewhat scientific article in a moderately well-read community. If you don't want anyone to insult you, don't comment on things you don't understand.

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing about the human genome. At least I don't think you do, you could easily be a P.h.D but your comments don't tell me that you understand what exactly the genome is or means.

For starteres, people only have one genome. They have multiple genes. People could make the argument for a person having two genomes (maternal and paternal) but they would still loose that argument pretty quickly.

There is a direct relationship between a single function and a single gene. A gene does one thing, encode for a protein. That's it. What is interesting about figuring out the entire genome is what is outside of the genes. The sequences of bases outside what codes for a gene. That is believed to be what controls the interesting part of genes, the expression of genes. Certain sequences of bases might bend the molecule a different way so that certain genes aren't expressed for example. But you are right, the number of genes isn't as important as how the genes are expressed. (For example, the signals that tell other cells to grow in flies might be similar to that of a humans, the gene is almost the same. But it is the expression of that gene that makes a fly the size of a penny and a human the size of a human.

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

That's not what the article was saying. The article was saying that since we have too few genes to determine race, race isn't genetically determined. Obviously they have a different idea of what it means for race to be genetically determined than you. I'm not sure what that idea is, but it seems silly to me. It is not at all obvious that 40,000 genes is too few to describe anything.

To me, race is a word to describe the differing physical characteristics of people whose ancestors evolved in different areas. The fact that some people are a mixture of races is not problematic, it is just a fact. Race is totally arbitrary, determined only by the observation that some groups of people tend to have traits that other groups don't. It is silly to attatch any other sort of meaning to the word.

Re:I thought so.

[hamanu]

The low number of genes discovered raises intriguing issues. One is that there is no genetic basis for race. All humans share 99.99 per cent of their genetic information and there is more variation within racial groups than between them.

Actually that's not what I take it to say. It says that because we're so much alike, and there is so little variation between races the concept of race is not genetically backed up.

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

The criteria we use to classify individuals as members of different races are totally biological. Race is a human convention, and it's an imprecise and often misleading notion. Just because an idea is imprecise does not mean it does not exist. Certain genes and related physical characteristics correlate in identifiable populations. Exact definitions of different races are (almost) inevitably flawed, but it's obvious that groups of people who lived in different parts of the world for many generations came to have different biological characteristics.

Re:I thought so.

[evilquaker]

The low number of genes means humans have as few as 300 more genes than a mouse and only twice the genes of the fruit fly. "A lot of people will find that philosophically disturbing," says theoretical biologist Jean-Michel Claverie

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule?

The brightest minds of biology did, over 10 years ago... and so the central dogma of biology ("one gene => one protein => one function") was taught to a generation of students.

Of course, this completely misses two of the biggest results in the last few years: the acknowledgment of alternative splicing as a common phenomenon (10 years ago, people thought it happened in 5% of human genes, now we know it's more like 50%) and the identification of miRNAs as regulators of gene function.

But it's so hard to argue with dogma...

Re:I thought so.

[skywire]

Of course race has a genetic basis. It is inherited, after all. Black people have black children.

If you were talking about skin colour, then this would make sense. But you are speaking about 'race', which is a word that is used to refer to a fuzzy concept that has no clear scientific definition. You might as well have said "Of course phlogiston flows. Things do change temperature, after all."

Re:I thought so.

[Otter]

We have 23 pairs of chromosomes, no more, no fewer. That's been known for ages now.

Well, it was believed to be 24 pairs until 1956. Admittedly, in molecular biology that may well qualify as "ages".

Re:I thought so.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule? How about "better genes == more superiority"?

What the heck does "better genes" mean? For that matter, what does "more superiority"? Despite what everyone seems to want, evolution is not a moralistic process! There is no "superior" or "inferior". At best, there is "more fit" and "less fit" -- and even that is strongly location-dependent and time-evolving. In terms of survival fitness, it can be argued that, say, bacteria -- or insects -- way outperform humans. Sure, they don't build cathedrals or rocket ships, but what the heck does evolution care?

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

"Better" is a subjective word. I'm not here to argue the philosophy of "better" with you. IMHO philosophy is a mostly pointless exercise in intellectual masturbation. Philosophers who would be disturbed by the fact that humans don't have more genes than animals obviously do have some standard of "better" or "worse" in mind, so my argument would make sense to them. Feel free to ignore it.

Re:I thought so.

[danudwary]

The brightest minds of biology did, over 10 years ago... and so the central dogma of biology ("one gene => one protein => one function") was taught to a generation of students.

Sorry. The "Central Dogma" is DNA->RNA->protein. Still true. Only the ignorant have misinterpreted it that way.

(It's also been added to. For example we now know that occasionally RNA->DNA and once in a great while DNA->protein.)

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

That argument is silly too. To me, a genetic basis for race is the genetic variations that cause the traits widely recognized as belonging to a certain race. Therefore it is obvious that there is a genetic basis for race, no matter how small a percentage of the genome it takes up. What is their idea of a genetic basis for race? Would half the genome be enough? Why would that be necessary?

Re:I thought so.

[Rutulian]

The brightest minds of biology did, over 10 years ago... and so the central dogma of biology ("one gene => one protein => one function") was taught to a generation of students.

Actually that is not the central dogma of biology. The central dogma is DNA -> RNA -> Polypeptide (Ref: Russell, Genetics, 1998). The one-gene one-enzyme hypothesis was proposed a long time ago, and yes it did earn a Nobel Prize, but it has since been altered to the one-gene one-polypeptide hypothesis. Gene expression has proved to be much more complicated than anyone initially thought.

Re:I thought so.

[evilquaker]

Sorry. The "Central Dogma" is DNA->RNA->protein. Still true.

Not as "true" as it was 5 years ago. Gradually, people are coming to the conclusion that non-coding RNAs are much more common than they had previously thought. See e.g. Okazaki, et. al. in the Dec. 2002 Nature.

Only the ignorant have misinterpreted it that way.

Ten years ago, everyone interpreted it that way. How smart you are with hindsight.

Re:I thought so.

[CoolGuySteve]

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule?

A bunch of people with Down Syndrome when they were having a snack pack break. mmm pudding!

Re:I thought so.

[Raffaello]

The reason that there is no genetic basis for the naive (and racist) concepts of race is that all the racisits conveniently omit that large portion of humanity whose superficial charateristics fall between the racial stereotypes.

What are north africans? Are they black? "Yes," says the Norwegian racist, "because they don't have pink skin and blue eyes." "No," says the Kenyan racist, "because they have straight hair, and their skin is too light."

And so on, and on, for central asians (are they Caucasian, or Mongoloid?), and Dravidians (are they "black" or caucasian), etc. etc.

There's no genetic basis for races, because there's no real definition of what constitutes one race or the other. The only thing people ever define are the extremes (practically albino white, with straight blonde hair and blue eyes v. the darkest possible skin tone with very kinky hair) but no one can agree on where to classify the vast number of people who fall in between these extremes, and who occupy a substantial portion of the land area of our planet.

Re:I thought so.

[Capt'n Hector]

"These three words are about as non-exchangable as three words can be."

As you said, they're words. Just words. I'm sorry I don't have the correct vocabulary to express my view on the subject, I as of yet have not taken a course on genetics or for that matter biology, but don't assume for a second that I "don't understand." For god's sake, you sound as if you were talking down to me!

"If you don't want anyone to insult you, don't comment on things you don't understand."

Why is it that one must insult ignorance? Is it a crime not to be as knowledgeable as some of you? Does it give you or anybody else an excuse to get off on talking down to somebody? I may not understand genetics, but you sir do not understand manners.

oh, by the way, you spelled "exchangeable" incorrectly.

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

So I guess what they're really saying is "there aren't large segments of the population with big hunks of genome that are different, thus obviously marking them as belonging to a race," not "racial characteristics such as dark skin aren't determined by your genes." I guess from my point of view it doesn't matter how much of the genome is devoted to racial characteristics, but for a racist it might "justify" his views in some sense if the people he didn't like had a substantially different genome than him.

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny...Growing up the chickens in the pen would peck each other to death on occation. And most of the time the smallest would have all the back feathers removed. I doubt we are much different from them in many ways.

Re:I thought so.

[Prune]

Thank you so much for writing this, so that I didn't have to! I couldn't believe the crap in that article, like
"The finding deals a heavy blow to genetic determinism." WTF?
If complexity theory has demonstrated anything it is that even systems with few degrees of freedom can develop enormous complexity. The genes ARE to a good extent a blueprint, but the low number means nothing. Consider for example Steven Pinker's discussion in How the Mind Works about how the brain continues to rewire itself after birth, and although using the environment for stimulus, it is still for the most part according to the genetic blueprint.
What I find most disturbing is that the stupid comments originate from the scientist rather than the writer of the article. The overspecialization and narrow-mindednes even within one's own discipline nowdays is staggering.

Re:I thought so.

[autopr0n]

they don't build cathedrals or rocket ships, but what the heck does evolution care?

It cares quite a bit, as these tools help us get the basics of life, like food watter and sex.

Re:I thought so.

[gene_tailor]

>What I find most disturbing is that that the stupid comments originate from the scientist

I can't be sure in this case, but it's not unusual for reporters to quote out of context and to take the most simplistic and sensational comments out of a long interview, eliminating the more scientifically measured and difficult to understand parts in favor of "sound bites".... just something to consider.

Re:I thought so.

[gene_tailor]

>Just because an idea is imprecise does not mean it does not exist

It may exist in sociology, but not in genetics. Race is not a genetically valid concept. It is true that there are genetic differences between groups, but genetic studies have found that the amount of variation WITHIN each group is larger than that AMONG various groups. Attempts to predict race/ethnicity etc. from genetic sequence have all failed. The few differences among our genes that produce physically visible traits are tiny compared to the number of possible variations visible at the molecular level.

Re:I thought so.

[dvdeug]

how much of the genome is devoted to racial characteristics

What's a racial characteristic? Any gene variant is going to appear in a different percentage of people in different groups. Sickle cell amenia is common in north Africans and Italians, but not southern Africans. Black skin is common in Africans but not Italians. Why is black skin a racial characteristic and sickle cell amenia isn't?

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wouldn't say we are simple at all. The fact that we are easily more complicated and advanced than anything mankind has ever developed seems to point to a great level of complexity.

We don't have cars that automatically heal themselves when they are scratched for instance. Nor do we have any software that can reflect upon themselves like we do.

There is no program we have written or machine we have built that can write poems and music, draw pictures, feel, desire, and believe things with the amazing detail that us, as humans already can.

I'm not saying it's impossible for us to build such machines (perhaps creatures), I'm just saying that our bodies are vastly more complicated and amazing than anything we as mankind have ever dared to construct to this day.

Re:I thought so.

[Spy Hunter]

Sickle cell anemia isn't a racial characteristic because people don't recognize it as such. If they did it would be. The characteristics which determine race are chosen by people. That's my opinion of course. Some people apparently believed that race would turn out to be a fundamental, large, easily detected difference in the genome. The article incorrectly says that the low number of genes proves that wrong. In the next sentence they give the real reason: there is data that disproves that directly.

Re:I thought so.

[rushiferu]

"one gene => one protein => one function"

Hasn't been taught in a while, at least not where I went to college. One gene has six reading frames (six different proteins). Some genes code for several proteins in the same reading frame. Many RNA strands undergo modification after transcription (more protein variety). And some proteins get modified after production as well.

Producing 100,000+ proteins with only 40K genes is fairly easy.

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it just means that we were wrong before, and we still don't have a clue about how big an effect single genes can really have on an organism.

However, scientists are certain that tight jeans can really have an effect on one's orgasm.

And on a related topic,

Q: How do you make beef jerky?

A: Observe beef as it is broadcast live from a videophone in Iraq.

Good night folks. Be good to your parents, they've been good to you. :-)

Re:I thought so.

[boaworm]

Its actually more complicated than that. Depending on the environment in which an organism resides, the number of genes (and the size of the genome) required to survive does vary. The article mentions ~27000 to ~40000 Genes in the human genome. Another well studied organism, the Hordeum Vulgare, has about 5 times the size of our genome. Would you say its more complex than you are? The ability to move makes us need far less genes than the H. Vulgare and many of its fellows. Its stuck in the ground, and have to survive climate changes without being able to wear an extra piece of clothing or moving the the riviera :-)

Btw.. H. Vulgare is "wheat".

Re:I thought so.

[kmellis]

People are trying to explain this in different ways, but let's make it clear and simple:

The modern concept of race is that groups of people that are readily identifiable via a few physical traits (primarily skin color, but also face and eye shape, height, etc.) are more closely genetically related, on average, to each other than to they are to other groups.

This has been proven to be false.

It doesn't have to be false. Populations do diverge genetically, that's certain. And human populations could have diverged in ways that are expressed uniquely as gross anatomical differences. But they haven't.

A key word in that previous paragraph is "uniquely". You see, for something like skin color to be a reliable indicator of genetic relatedness, the skin color has to have a one-to-one correspondence with the genetic variation that causes it.[1] For example, I happen to have a rare genetic disease that is a mutation on the gene that controls collagen. As far as anyone knows, this mutation exists only among a few people in the world that have a common ancestor. So if you find this mutation, then you've found someone related to me. Put another way, if you find someone with the disease I have, they're related to me.

In contrast, there are other mutations on the collagen gene that exist among many unrelated people. It's a common mutation. If you find someone with that corresponding disease, there's no guarantee that they're related to someone else with that disease.

Now, the problem is that all of the features that are associated with how people define "race" are like the latter example, not the former. That is, genetically unrelated people can have dark skin. Dark skin can and has arisen among unrelated populations. Worse, dark and light skin has arisen among relatively closely related populations such that a given light skinned population is more closely related to a given dark skinned population than it is to another light skinned population. So, looking at the human race as a whole, skin color is an unreliable indicator of genetic relatedness.

Within a population that is reasonably restricted, however, it can be a reliable indicator of relatedness. Almost all African Americans have a common ancestor from west Africa. But west Africans are not closely related to some other dark skinned Africans. So, for example, while African Americans share a tendency to having the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, other dark skinned people--including many other African peoples--do not.

The reason this is all very important is because the modern idea of race has been assumed to have been validated on the basis of genetics. Furthermore, since it's assumed that members of a "race" are closely related genetically, and since it's obviously true that genetically closely related individuals are likely to share a lot of traits, it's been assumed that members of a race share lots of similar traits. Thus, people have argued about gross differences between races in the matter of intelligence, athletic ability, temperment, what have you. And if race did reliably indicate genetic relatedness, then these assumptions might have some merit. But since race is not an indicator of genetic relatedness, it can't be (in this respect[2]) an indicator of similarity in these traits.

Since the whole modern notion of race rests upon this assumption of relatedness and shared traits, and that notion is false, this is why some people say that the concept of race is scientifically false. They're not saying that genetics is false, or that genes don't control the expression of the various features associated with race. They are saying that the particular kind of relationship imagined between genetics and race doesn't exist.

And, in the end, what you're left with is a very messy sociological conception of race which has everything to do with local cultural standards and nothing at all to do with genetics in a meaningful way.

Re:I thought so.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

It cares quite a bit, as these tools help us get the basics of life, like food watter and sex.

But evolution doesn't care that we build rocket ships; it cares only about the food, water, and sex -- and really, not so much about the food and water. We get no special bonus points for achieving art, from an evolutionary standpoint; evolution has no use for art as art but only as reproductive-success enhancer.

Of course this is just one reason why it's silly to use evolution as a grounding for the values one holds.

Re:I thought so.

[fredrik70]

indeed, otherwise one could consider all blueeyed ppl a race, and browneyed another, etc, etc. What's called races are just variations
IMHO.

Re:I thought so.

[renehollan]

"The low number of genes [means] that there is no genetic basis for race."

Totally not true. Of course race has a genetic basis. It is inherited, after all. Black people have black children. It just means that the number of genes necessary to determine race is smaller than we thought.

There are studies (none of which I have a reference to at hand, sadly, so you'll have to take this as a hypothesis and do the research for my lazy ass this morning), that suggest race is an evolutionary adaptation to climate. Genetically determined, of course, but that's just uncle Darwin paying a visit.

The correlation has been used to shoot down bigoted assertions that there is a correlation between race and inteligence, though sadly, one corelation is not, by itself, evidence of the lack of another, so we still have to rely in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to quash that ugly hypothesis.

Re:I thought so.

[fferreres]

We consider superior to any other being right now, so the assertion is quite correct. It doesn't matter if you are more fit than a cow, we'll still try to save you while we'll eat the cow.

The only rule that applies that who's in charge makes the rules. Morality is whatever the ones in charge want or believe it to be.

Re:I thought so.

[HiThere]

I believe the actual central dogma was roughly:
Information flows FROM the DNA TO the RNA and from the RNA to the protein (OK, polypeptide).

Tbis is still usually the case. Reverse transcriptase is what overthrew it, but most of the time it's true. The only exceptions I can think of are viruses, but I'm not any kind of biologist. (Also, I have a feeling that we must use it, or we'd have evolved a defense against it.)

When it was first discovered reverse transcriptase was quite a shock. But nobody even seems to remember that it was unexpected.

Re:I thought so.

[HiThere]

No. But it's an important point, that frequently gets medical studies in trouble. They tend to assume that two people of a given "race" are more likely to have other genes in common, so they record "race" on the medical study, but not the truly relevant information. (To be fair, it would cost a LOT more to include a gene analysis for each study member. But it would make the results a lot more valuable.)

Re:I thought so.

[d_i_r_t_y]

the 1 gene = 1 rna = 1 protein thing certainly doesn't hold up anymore. besides varsplices, as mentioned, there also a plethora of post-translational modifications, eg glycosylation that also give rise to (arguably) different gene products.

Re:I thought so.

[d_i_r_t_y]

The low number of genes means humans have as few as 300 more genes than a mouse and only twice the genes of the fruit fly. "A lot of people will find that philosophically disturbing," says theoretical biologist Jean-Michel Claverie

I don't see why they should. More genes == more superiority? Who made up that rule? How about "better genes == more superiority"?

sure. many plant genomes (eg: arabidopsis (mustard)) are larger than ours, but that certainly doesn't make them more "complex".

Re:I thought so.

[qubit64]

and evidently for some of us, even the brain is no more complex. :)

Re:I thought so.

[qubit64]

Wow. This has got the be the most insightful comment I've seen in a while, maybe even ever.

Re:I thought so.

[sflory]

That's such an idealized view of chickens. I've seen Roosters beat the shit out of hens. Of course I've also seen the reverse.

I grew up on a farm. The chickens were by far the meanest nastiest creatures I've ever met. I've seen chickens repeatedly attack an injured chicken. You literally have the remove the injured chicken. Otherwise they kill it, and then eat it.

And before you say that's because they were couped up in a small space. They weren't.

Re:I thought so.

[NedTheNerd]

so your saying we arent so diffrent from chickens after all? Thats what I was saying before ;)

Re:I thought so.

[skybird0]

Since it is well known that genetic scientists cannot count correctly, I wounder if the numbers at the start of the article are accurate or surprising.

Re:I thought so.

[Planesdragon]

What the heck does "better genes" mean? For that matter, what does "more superiority"?

Complexity and adaptability. More astetic. More elegant design. Producing a more robust creature that is able to do more.

Of course, most of this comes from intelligence rather than directly from genetic programming...

Re:I thought so.

[kalidasa]

The low number of genes [means] that there is no genetic basis for race.
Totally not true. Of course race has a genetic basis. It is inherited, after all. Black people have black children. It just means that the number of genes necessary to determine race is smaller than we thought.

You're mistaking skin color for race. Race is the concept that the human species is broken up into a number of sub-species which can be easily identified by their skin color and other phenotypic characteristics. Is the number of characteristics that are associated with skin color large, or small? If large, race is a biological category; if small, race is not a biological category, and skin color is just a separate phenotypic characteristic like eye color, hair color, etc. The number of associated characteristics seems to be small, which would invalidate "race" as a biological category.

Re:I thought so.

[soundofthemoon]

There is nothing arbitrary about a chromosome. A chromosome is a single strand of DNA. As such, it's an important distinction in genetics.

The units go something like:

+ base pair = a single pairing of nucleotides
+ codon = a triplet of base pairs that make up a "letter" in the genetic "alphabet"
+ gene = a group of codons
+ chromosome = a strand (single molecule) of DNA
+ genome = a complete set of genes

Re:I thought so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the March 20 New England Journal of Medicine? Race is alive, if not well and satisfactory, in genetics.

Is you among/within just about group means? That's a bullshit argument. It depends on which genes are examined. We certainly can/will find some way to combine genetic findings that matches our current ideas. The ability to look at someone and tell which part of the world his/her ancestors came from has a genetic basis. Whether it's a good idea is another issue.

Re:I thought so.

[glitch23]

Since evolution isn't real I guess it doesn't care at all. Simple question, simple answer.

Re:I thought so.

[shrikel]

Genetic studies have found that the amount of variation WITHIN each group is larger than that AMONG various groups.

Prove that one and you'll get the Fields Medal.

How could it be that you analyze two sets (call them sets A and B) and find some certain amount of diversity in each one. Unless one set consists solely of members of the other set, there will be a GREATER diversity, overall, when you analyze both sets together.

In other words (as a mathematical parallel), you can't have a range of values (say x1..x10) and another range (y1..y10), where each seperately has more distinct values than both do together. It's impossible.

If you're saying that the individuals in one group are more different from others in their group than the average person in their group is from the the average person in the other group, that's fine. But it actually argues AGAINST the point you seem to be trying to make, because it says that the AVERAGE set of traits held by those in one group is fundamentally different from the AVERAGE set of traits held by members of the other. In other words, there ARE perceptible and measurable differences among the different groups.

Re:I thought so.

[gene_tailor]

I heard about the NEJM article but didn't get access to the full text till today... from the article there about Race and Genomics, quoting:

most population geneticists concur that the bulk of genetic variation (90 to 95 percent) occurs within, not among, continental populations. The central observations remain: variation is continuous and discordant with race, systematic variation according to continent is very limited, and there is no evidence that the units of interest for medical genetics correspond to what we call races.

Re:I thought so.

[rthille]

If you read Dawkins, you'll see that a 'superior gene' is one that reproduces better. After all, that's what the gene is trying to do at the basic level. "A zygote is a gamete's way of making more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe" -L. Long :-)

Re:I thought so.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

If you read Dawkins, you'll see that a 'superior gene' is one that reproduces better.

This would imply that the most superior form of life is bacteria, since bacteria genes vastly outnumber any other type.

Mmmm... genome surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what my mom makes with all the left over genomes. It's always good, but younever know quite how it's going to taste.

'Prize'?

[Anonymous Freak]

Since when is 'surprise' spelled with a z? I was expecting something like a contest for the first group to completely map it, and that it was won immediately, or some such nonsense. A combination of a 'surprise' and a 'prize'.

Otherwise, it's just some horrible spelling.

Re:'Prize'?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one of the silly american english spelling rules. They spell words like suprise, magnatise, hypnotise, realise etc with an -ize rather than an -ise.

Re:'Prize'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Surprise" is the gerund of French "surprendre" meaning, um, to surprise. By contrast, almost all the words that are spelt alternatively -ise/-ize are verbs meaning to give something some property (from the Greek infix -iz-).

Thus "fooize", to render foo. (As opposed to "se rendre fou", to spend too long worrying about spelling.)

Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

This does not equal _gene expression_, or does not explain epigenetic effects.

This kind of news always makes me wary. Did the reporters mean what the author had in mind? Yes, when it comes to genetics I am more suspicious, after all, as a political tool it is too powerful for lunatics to be based on empty air; if you see what I mean.

Implications

[Pettifogger]

Does this mean that we're all inbred? I think I'm going to log off and go play my banjo with uncle grandpa for awhile.

Re:Implications

[gl4ss]

** Does this mean that we're all inbred? I think I'm going to log off and go play my banjo with uncle grandpa for awhile.**

i would guess so.

i once read iirc from a popular science style magazine that an asian and an western europe humans have more identical dna than two apes living in the same group.

Not a new observation

[zach_smith]

Along with the news... comes a suprising observation about the genome: We have substantially fewer genes than expected

This observation was already made a couple of years back when the first draft was published. Note the date on the second link.

Re:Not a new observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we call this an "old-school" dupe, then? =)

Re: Not a new observation

[Anonymous Coward]

It is scary for a freedom loving person to live in Amerikkka right now.

Re:This is Great

[Pharmboy]

Intelligence fading....

Its probably because you just lost around 110,000 genes. It could happen to anyone.

Just for comparison's sake...

[Blondie-Wan]

... how many MB does a full install of a recent version of Office use, anyway? ;)

Kidding aside, a lot of the purported "implications" of the finding aren't exactly new. From the article:

The low number of genes discovered raises intriguing issues. One is that there is no genetic basis for race. All humans share 99.99 per cent of their genetic information and there is more variation within racial groups than between them.

That's nothing new, though - scientists have known a long time there's no scientific basis for the concept of "race" as applied to humans. It's a cultural construct.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Pharmboy]

That's nothing new, though - scientists have known a long time there's no scientific basis for the concept of "race" as applied to humans. It's a cultural construct.

Not to argue with your basic idea there, but how does culture determine the similarities then? The fact that most native Africans have dark skin, most Northern Europeans are relatively fair skinned, and most Asians are notably shorter than Native Americans? There has to be some genes doing something. Or some other mechanism we have yet to discover.

Our perception of 'race' is surely more exaggerated than the actual genetic differences alone justify, but race is more than genes. For instance: dictionary.com defines race as:

* A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

* A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

* A genealogical line; a lineage.

* Humans considered as a group.

So race is neither purely genetic, nor purely cultural. We forget that sometimes.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Merk]

That may be, but race is still interesting.

Race is not much more than a way of classifying people based on appearance. It might also hint at a shared cultural background, but not always. But it is still potentially useful.

Nobody would say that the colour of a car should have anything to do with its handling. It's just paint, and has nothing to do with the insides. On the other hand, there are far more red sportscars than there are powder-blue ones.

If people are willing to accept that, maybe they'd be willing to look at other factors that happen to coincide with light skin tones or different-looking eyes. Unfortunately, any researcher wanting to look at this might as well put on a hood and join the KKK because people are so overly sensitive when it comes to race. If the environments different races evolved in were different enough to cause the obvious physical differences, wouldn't it be surprising if the differences stopped there? Even if the differences within a race are far greater than the differences between races, it would be interesting to see if there are tendencies towards something based on race.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> So race is neither purely genetic, nor purely cultural. We forget that sometimes.

Agreed. But, also, all this implies that if you take an individual (e.g. an American) and raise him on a different country (e.g. Romania) then you have a guy of a different race, possibly he could be even 99.99% Romanian.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Pharmboy]

Agreed. But, also, all this implies that if you take an individual (e.g. an American) and raise him on a different country (e.g. Romania) then you have a guy of a different race, possibly he could be even 99.99% Romanian.

no no no. it doesnt prove that all to me. it mainly proves we don't know as much about genes as we thought. Or its not just the individual genes, but the interaction between them. Or something else we don't understand yet. My point was its obviously NOT just the number of genes that decides.

I can take a radio apart and show you all the parts. That doesn't mean I can tell you what each part does, or how to put it back together. The genome may be like that, but lots more parts.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[kmac06]

Even if the differences within a race are far greater than the differences between races, it would be interesting to see if there are tendencies towards something based on race.

What percent of the population in the USA is black? What percent of the NBA is black?

The discrepancy could partly be due to cultural/economic conditions causing black people to play more early on, but I don't think that explains it all. There's gotta be a race factor going on in there.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Oscar_Wilde]

So have we figured out why people with brown skin act like wild animals?

Because some people treat them as though they are.

Sorry to feed the trolls...

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[hamanu]

The choice of racial classifications is a cultural construct, not the underlying physical features. For instance, many italians are not considered white in australia.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[dspeyer]

Not to argue with your basic idea there, but how does culture determine the similarities then? The fact that most native Africans have dark skin, most Northern Europeans are relatively fair skinned, and most Asians are notably shorter than Native Americans? There has to be some genes doing something. Or some other mechanism we have yet to discover.

Dark-skinned is not a race. "Black" is a race -- and very few black people have actual black skin (much less black teeth!). Races are cultural constructs that may include genetic/physical characteristics in their definitions. Some physical characteristics are often considered (e.g. skin color) and some (earlobe attatchment, blood type) are generally ignored. Furthermore:

• USA custom dictates that an individual with one great-great-grandfather from Nigeria and the rest from England is black, completely irrespective of any alleles the individual may actually express or carry.
• USA custom acknowledges "Hispanic" as a race, even though it carries no genetic correlation. It is roughly defined as an individual who's native language is an American dialect of Spanish, or the decendant of such a person to the fourth generation. Except Jamacans, who might be black. And including Haitians and Brazilians, or something like that.
• Mexican custom dictates that an individual with one nigerian parent and one Castillian is black, mulatto, or white depending on the individual's net income. (Disclaimer: I haven't been to Mexico -- this is the finding of some random ethnographer.)

What's probably most significant, though, is that the races which do correspond to genetic traits make no sense as biological characterizations. They don't match actual genetic difference groups at all. This is what is meant by the statement that races are purely cultural.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Ponty]

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0105812

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its also odd that the red head gene that is so typical in the Irish also happens to be found in many people in the eastern parts of Africa. No one is quite sure how it got managed to move so far north and miss the rest of Europe.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[autopr0n]

Nobody would say that the colour of a car should have anything to do with its handling. It's just paint, and has nothing to do with the insides. On the other hand, there are far more red sportscars than there are powder-blue ones.

That's because people can chose the color of their car. People cannot chose the color of their skin.

Also, my car is light blue and it could kick your cars ass.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[gobbo]

Aw hell, there go my mod points.

Race is not much more than a way of classifying people based on appearance. It might also hint at a shared cultural background, but not always. But it is still potentially useful.

Well, for sociology nerds, it's important to remember that 'race' as a concept doesn't really exist outside of a discourse of oppressive relationships, since its historical origins as a concept were so bound up in the overdetermining of slavery as a 'natural' practice.

Not that anyone who uses the term is being oppressive. You are right to some degree, that the term is often used as a way of pointing at appearance linked to geographic heritage. But that nasty history is carried along with the word and the way the institutions of the world deal with it. Yes, words like that always have complex meanings.

Anyone who examines the quagmire that is Race Politics in N.A. (which influences the discourse of race throughout the world) has to admit that oppression, repression, taboo, and resistance are not yet dissociated from the concept of race.

As the poet said, "race is a myth, but racism isn't."

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Merk]

Maybe, maybe not. But I sure wish someone had the opportunity to study that without being labelled a racist.

Re:Just for comparison's sake...

[Merk]

I don't have a car. ;)

But regarding cars, that was the oversimplified example. It seems obvious that cars are the colours they are because people choose them that way. This could probably be quickly confirmed by a marketing survey. The fact remains that the distribution of colours among sports cars is different from the distribution of colours among family cars.

What if we look at the race of top executives. They may be more white than black. Is this also because CEOs can "choose the colour of their executives"? Maybe, just maybe, there is something else at work here. Maybe it's a sense of comfort with someone who has a similar background. Maybe it's something more sinister, who knows, but it is worth studying.

Re:This is Great

[buyo-kun]

*Blinks trying to understand what he said*

*hmm... I can't figure out was he means... better make myself look big*

*raises arms with hands in claw formation and stands on his toes*

Apparentlysss

[ekephart]

Science: Genome Surprize
Scientists still haven't found the gene for bad spelling...

Re:Apparentlysss

[ekephart]

"Apparentlysss" - DAMMIT!

Re:Apparentlysss

[Anonymous Coward]

surprize

Article's numbers not clear

[glwtta]

I need to know how many genes we have in Libraries of Congress - these numbers just don't make any sense otherwise.

Re:Article's numbers not clear

[jbarket]

Personally, I'm waiting for it to be converted into numbers of VW Bugs.

Re:Article's numbers not clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Gene Roberts
Gene Lowenthal
Eugene Levy
Eugene McCarthy
Gene Paul Collingwood
Gene Simmons
Gene Gene the Dancin' Machine
Gene Loves Jezebel

Quite a lot of Genes, actually. I doubt Mr. Simmons is asasociated with the LOC, though, but a great many nonetheless.

Re:Article's numbers not clear

[Ponty]

My favorite rate is "time to skeletonize a cow." I'd like to know how long it would take the newer, smaller genome to skeletonize a cow.

This does not mean we're simple

[jabber01]

It does mean that we have great low level instruction optimization, however. Built-in compression, at the hardware level.

27k base pairs you say? Each one being one of a possible four, making it representable with two bits? Faboo... You can store a complete human blueprint in under 14KB. Lets start encoding and launching our codes all over creation, as self-extracting executables, of course. Homo Sapiens cum Code Red. Digital panspermia.

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[vondo]

No, a gene is not a base pair, it is a string of base pairs. I don't know how many, on average, but the relevant parts of our DNA (some 3 billion base pairs) occupy considerably more than 15K.

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[snarkh]

But how complicated is a machine that can decode you?

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[Galvatron]

Assuming 3 billion base pairs, that'd be 1.5 billion bytes, or just under 1.4 gigabytes. Since there are a small number of 3 base pair groupings that make up all of the amino acids (if I remember my high school biology, which I may not, feel free to correct me), this is probably heavily compressible. We should be able to wedge it onto a CD-ROM. Even uncompressed, your genome will fit on a DVD.

You're right, it's a hell of a lot more than 15 K, but it's still pretty transportable.

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[vondo]

Yeah, but as I understand it, the vast majority of those 3 billion are just filler and don't belong to any gene, so it's even smaller than what would fit on a CD, I'd guess.

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[jafuser]

We assume that is useless DNA, but if we took it out, I have a feeling we'd have problems.

Nature tries to optimize to remove unnecessary baggage. I'd assume that at least some of that "useless" DNA has some sort of purpose, probably working in some way we haven't discovered yet.

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[wezelboy]

As a matter of fact, the draft assembly of the human genome was fit on CD-ROM using 2bit substitution and run length encoding. All the big wigs (including Bill and Hillary) have a copy.

Re:This does not mean we're simple

[jabber01]

We can take a page from the Walt Disney playbook, and just hope one gets invented in the future.

Brought to you by

[Anonymous Coward]

To Serve Man.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

You're funny.

Political correctness again loses against reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Are two Caucasians going to have an Asian baby?

How about two American Indians a black baby?

So if that's not genetically-determined, nothing is.

If the article is trying to say we can't determine the race of a person from that person's DNA, then it's only correct because we can't read the genome - yet.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I think slashdot has disabled linking to Ablabla.org. Call me crazy, but maybe my stupid assed trolling finally got to them.

Does it work?

Re:Substantially fewer?

[melangeboi]

the human genome...the planet's largest open-source project ever.

Suddenly

[cyril3]

I'm only half the man I used to be.

Damn you scientists.

Re:Suddenly

[yet another coward]

I'm not half the man I used to be.

Maybe you were not quoting Paul, though.

Re:Suddenly

[cyril3]

I wasn't sure if I could get clearance for the sample.

Background Info

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Want To Know What The Human Genome Project Is?

Begun formally in 1990, the U.S. Human Genome Project is a 13-year effort coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. The project originally was planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances have accelerated the expected completion date to 2003. Project goals are to

• identify all the approximate 30,000 genes in human DNA,
• determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
• store this information in databases,
• improve tools for data analysis,
• transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
• address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.

To help achieve these goals, researchers also are studying the genetic makeup of several nonhuman organisms. These include the common human gut bacterium Escherichia coli, the fruit fly, and the laboratory mouse.

A unique aspect of the U.S. Human Genome Project is that it is the first large scientific undertaking to address the ELSI implications that may arise from the project.

Another important feature of the project is the federal government's long-standing dedication to the transfer of technology to the private sector. By licensing technologies to private companies and awarding grants for innovative research, the project is catalyzing the multibillion-dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostering the development of new medical applications.

Sequence and Analysis of the human genome working draft was published in February, 2001, in Nature and Science. See an index of these papers and learn more about the insights gained from them.

For more background information on the U.S. Human Genome Project, see the following

• HGP Goals (1998-2003)
• HGP Progress
• HGP History
• Human Genome News

What's a genome? And why is it important?

• A genome is all the DNA in an organism, including its genes. Genes carry information for making all the proteins required by all organisms. These proteins determine, among other things, how the organism looks, how well its body metabolizes food or fights infection, and sometimes even how it behaves.
• DNA is made up of four similar chemicals (called bases and abbreviated A, T, C, and G) that are repeated millions or billions of times throughout a genome. The human genome, for example, has 3 billion pairs of bases.
• The particular order of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs is extremely important. The order underlies all of life's diversity, even dictating whether an organism is human or another species such as yeast, rice, or fruit fly, all of which have their own genomes and are themselves the focus of genome projects. Because all organisms are related through similarities in DNA sequences, insights gained from nonhuman genomes often lead to new knowledge about human biology.

  To understand more read

  • The Science Behind the Human Genome Project: Understanding the Basics

Re:Background Info

[Anonymous Coward]

Want To Know What The Human Genome Project Is?
No

Karmawhore

A day at the genome office

[boatboy]

scientist 1: Hey have you seen gene #40,001?
scientist 2: It was just here with the others next to my sandwich...Oh.
scientist 1: Great, you ate 40,001 through 140,000! Forget this.
scientist 2: But what'll I tell the press???

***
...In other news scientists revealed today that we have substantially fewer genes than expected; between 27,000 and 40,000 as compared to an original estimate of 140,000. Experts say that this discovery means that chimpanzees are even more like humans than people are...

The less one makes declarative statements...

[eidechse]

"What we've got now is what we'll have for all eternity"

Perhaps in the future we'll get to see this next to:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell

"640k should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates

I grant that this particular case may seem less "philosophical" than the cases in the quotations above but a "stick a fork in it...it's done" mindset is not only arrogant but detrimental to science as well.

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps in the future we'll get to see this next to:
"640k should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates

In a book about quotes that morons continue to repeat even though they have no source?

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[eidechse]

While it seems that your facts are in order (cite provided below), your tact needs work.

By BILL GATES
c.1996 Bloomberg Business News

QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?

ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time.

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[Anonymous Coward]

your tact needs work.

There simply isn't enough time in one's life to be polite to every fucking moron that needs straightening out.

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[eidechse]

Of course there is. You just lack the skill.

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[LadyLucky]

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell

Rest of the quote is that he, the director of the patent office, was requesting more funding, and that
"Anyone that would deny my must think that everything that can be invented has been invented"

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[eidechse]

If that's the case then I'm 0 for 2 with my selection of pithy quotations. D'oh. I'll stand by the original point...I'll just need to come up with different pithy quotations. Any suggestions?

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[Xarin]

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell

"640k should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates

"40,000" genes should be enough for anybody." - God

Re:The less one makes declarative statements...

[Dirtside]

Here, at least, is a page indicating that LadyLucky is correct. Snopes doesn't appear to have an entry about this quote, but this page makes a decent case that it's a myth.

So does that mean...

[miketang16]

That we're like 1/3 of what we were originally thought to be? I feel like less of a person....

Re:So does that mean...

[miketang16]

Ok.. ok.. mod me down.. but I swear I didn't read that post before posting this.

Huh?

[villain170]

"People think genes are an absolute cause of traits. But the notion that the genome is the blueprint for humanity is a very bad metaphor," he says. If you think we're hard-wired and deterministic, there should indeed be a lot more genes."

I admit he's much smarter than me, but couldn't it just mean that each gene carries so much information as to make it deterministic?

Re:Huh?

[Salis]

This topic is actually a focus of much research.

Because the concentrations of many gene regulatory proteins are so dilute/low, there exists significant fluctuations in the number of molecules that actually regulate the gene's expression. These fluctuations vary from time to time and from cell to cell, producing non-deterministic levels of gene expression. The non-determinism (called stochasticity) can cause some very interesting behavior that leads to numerous potential 'states' of gene expression versus a single, deterministic state.

So, on a very real basis, probability has a lot to do with how certain genes are expressed. Successful biological systems, however, hate random chance unless it's advantageous. These certain genes that utilize the internal noise of a "small" biological system do so because it gives some sort of advantage to them..either coding for numerous possible states with the least number of genes or for allowing the cell to randomly pick between possible states in order to create a heterogeneous cell population.

If you're interested in some scientific articles, try Adam Arkin's paper from 1998, detailing a stochastic simulation of a virus that attacks E. coli cells. The virus randomly selects whether it will replicate itself quickly and burst the cell open or integrate itself into the bacteria's genome and sit dormant. The probability of each event depends on the state of the bacteria at the time of infection. If the bacteria is starved, the virus goes dormant. If it's healthy, the virus goes into replication mode.

Salis

Apparently gene therapy doesn't work either...

[arhines]

...because the headline went from fixed to unfixed again :)

Big deal...

[Bearded Pear Shaped]

Somebody email me when they identify the bearded pear shaped gene. Because that is the worst one.

Don't tell God...

[gilesjuk]

He'll sue citing the DMCA.

Re:Don't tell God...

[docbrown42]

He'll sue citing the DMCA.

Yeah, but where is HE going to find a lawyer? In Heaven? Yeah, Right!

Re:Substantially fewer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liscenced BSD.

Only 40,000? Hardly!

[Maul]

That is only what the Patriots want you to think. The correct number is really 140,000, but the la-li-lu-le-lo don't want you to know that for some unseen reason.

They'll probably be after me for revealing this secret, but I can hide in this box I've got sitting right next to me.

Re:Substantially fewer?

[Pharmboy]

the human genome...the planet's largest open-source project ever.

Hold up! The genome has been patented, or parts of it anyway. This means that if you procreate you are guilty of distributing patented material without a license. As the joke goes, sex is a misdemeanor, da more I miss, da meaner I get.

This might be some sort of DMCA violation (Dont Make Children Americans) so I suggest everyone not have sex until the courts have hashed this out.

Ok, bad jokes, but its not open source either, until we talk them into opening up the source, which would mean abandoning the patents so they go to the public domain. (except for Mexico.)

Re:Political correctness again loses against reali

[drooling-dog]

So, if a child is born to an interracial couple, the child's race is...?

The point is that the genetic differences behind our racial distinctions are really quite miniscule. The closer you look at them, the harder it is to divide humans into well-defined categories. It is you, I'm afraid, who are holding to a politically-motivated viewpoint that is divorced from reality.

Simplistic thinking

[dh003i]

The complexity of organisms is not solely determined by how many genes they have. There are many other factors. One of them is the expression level of different genes. Differentially expressed genes in different cells leads to different cell types, which form tissues, organs, and overall complicated organisms. There are also other ways of conveying information from one generation to the next other than genes. There is an entire epigenome out there -- non-bp modifications to the DNA (e.g., methylation of DNA) and DNA structure (e.g., methylation of Histone-3's at the Lys 4 and 9, v. acetylation at those sites, v. phosphorylation). This relates to imprinting. For interesting reading, do NCBI searches on the following expressions:

Epigenetics
Imprinting
Histone Code
Imprinting Histone Code

Various epigenetic (that is, above the DNA-bp level) states are epigenetically inherited. They often determine chromatin structure, and are involved in a war between maternal and paternal genomes, genetic conflict. And, they contribute to creating a much more cmplicated organism than the number of genes alone would indicate.

Also, it is important to notice that more complex eukaryotes tend to have more transcription factors, zinc-finger proteins, and so on and so forth. The number of regulatory proteins has mushroomed as organisms become more complicated. It is clear that one of the most important things in determining the complexity of organisms is the differential regulation of various genes.

Re:Political correctness again loses against reali

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess would be human.

Surprise or Surprize?

[Pharmboy]

I thought Slashdot didn't change articles other than to append them? Wasn't 'surprise' spelled 'surprize' just a few minutes ago.

hmmm...

Re:Surprise or Surprize?

[Anonymous Coward]

OT:

They append new developments. But they are still allowed to fix typos (and if you look very closely, news of the fix is appended to the end of the article)

Re:Surprise or Surprize?

[JeanBaptiste]

wow, most people dont even rtfa... you apparently rtfa'd twice!

So race is nurture, not nature?

[n1ywb]

I don't get it, is this to say that if a black baby is raised by white parents, it will turn white? Huh? Did I miss something? If race isn't genetic, then what the hell is it? Is there something OTHER than genes that makes people white or black etc? If so then we know A LOT LESS about human biology than we think we do.

Re:So race is nurture, not nature?

[jezmund]

Well, the point is this - when you say "race" in reference to skin color, it is a scientific misnomer. Just because in popular culture the term "race" means skin color doesn't make it true. I recommend you check out the American Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race" for an explanation. A better word to use in place of "race" might be "ethnicity". Some people would argue that you are just replacing a word with another that has the same meaning, and there is certainly truth in that. Some people also think it is just a case of being overly politically-correct. However, there is a lot of power in a word, and the history of this word/concept is a very negative one (as the AAA statement shows). Additionally, many people believe there are separate human "races" in the scientific sense. That is, that people of dark brown skin color are akin to a separate "species" when compared with people of a lighter, whitish-pinkish skin color. And as this article points out, there is more variation genetically "intra-racially" than "inter-racially" to use your understanding of the terms.

-Ryan

Re:So race is nurture, not nature?

[jezmund]

Oh, and don't even get me started on the artificial concept of "nature vs. nurture".....

Re:So race is nurture, not nature?

[jeff4747]

No, there's a genetic basis for dark skin color, acutally composed of several genes. There's a genetic basis for light skin color, composed of the same set of genes with different settings.

There isn't a gene for "black" or "white".

It's the author trying to put some PC spin on their suprise that we don't have millions of genes.

Re:So race is nurture, not nature?

[n1ywb]

PC bullshit. Merriam Webster gives the following definition for "race":

1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

So it seems that the correct usage of the word "race" does not imply "a separate species" whatsoever, in fact that would be counter to it's definition. I certainly wasn't trying to imply "separate species". Given the definition of "race" it would seem unlikely that there is truely more genetic variation within races than between them. Perhaps the author of the article was being overbroad with the word "race" and lumping, for example, all dark-skinned people together in one race, and all light-skinned people together in another race. The reality is that there are many many races. Hell before the industrial age most people lived their entire life in a small geographical area so almost every group of people in a small geographical area could be considered a race. But whatever. My point is that the statement that "there is no genetic basis for race" is preposterous given that one definition of "race" is "inherited traits".

The proteins are where the fun is at

[Jman314]

Not to undermine the significance at mapping the genes, but they're the first step. The next is proteins, the building blocks of life described in DNA. They do everything, so naturaly they are being studied closely by biologists and drug companies.

So what if there is fewer genes than expected? It means that the means of describing protiens is not linear. Protiens can fold four different ways, offering many different structural combinations.

The highest level biological system we understand completely is a species of yeast. For a human, the interactions that make the system work are almost unimagineably complex, because there are so many variables. We're just beginning to model them accurately.

Complexity of life is more than just genes.

Re:The proteins are where the fun is at

[the gnat]

They do everything, so naturaly they are being studied closely by biologists and drug companies.

And have been for years. Studying proteins in parallel ("proteomics"), however, is a fairly recent innovation, just as genomics grew out of molecular genetics. It'll take a while before we can study proteins at the same scale as genomes. There are efforts now to scale up the process of structure determination through what's (rather inappropriately) called "structural genomics" - I've been working in this field recently. The problem is that crystallography and NMR do not lend themselves to high-throughput techniques as well as sequencing does, though some work is being done to address this.

Protiens can fold four different ways, offering many different structural combinations.

This is incorrect. Protein folding is not an absolute (once you involve membranes and chaperonins it gets even more ridiculously complicated) but molecular diversity is not cause by multiple folded states of the same peptide chain. Instead, it results from alternate splicing of mRNA transcripts, i.e. you get significantly different proteins being made based on the same gene. They may share certain tertiary protein domains, but it's possible for a particular splicing to frameshift part of a transcript relative to another version.

Re:Political correctness again loses against reali

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the Caucasians living? If they live in America, they have an American baby. If they live in China, they have an Asian baby. Maybe not of Asian descent, but still Asian.

Re:Only 40,000? Hardly!

[EhobaX]

Haha! I was thinking the same thing! They probably unplugged my controller at the time they reduced hte number.

Gene advances.

[cliffy2000]

It's really not too hard to get a superior human race. Just don't let stupid or fat people procreate. Darwin didn't need any of them gene therapies to figure that one out.
(Sorry, I must have offended most /. readers with that one. Don't worry... you'll be allowed to procreate!)

Re:Gene advances.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether Slashdot readers are *allowed* to procreate is a moot point.

Re:Gene advances.

[chadamir]

Hitler tried that, it didn't work.

Re:Gene advances.

[Anonymous Coward]

No stupid or fat people? That eliminates most of the American population...which apparently just keeps getting fatter.

Re:Gene advances.

[Dh2000]

Only because all the ancestors of fat Americans showed him up on the evilness thing.

Re:Gene advances.

[demaria]

"Okay, Dilbert is polite, honest, employed, and educated. And he stays home. These are good traits, but they don't explain the incredible sex appeal. So what's the attraction? I think it's a Darwinian thing. We're attracted to the people who have the best ability to survive and thrive. In the old days, it was important to be able to run down an antelope and kill it with a single blow to the forehead. But that skill is becoming less important every year"
-- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

Re:Gene advances.

[iq in binary]

As much as I'm against racism, this man is right. Our reproductive system is a product of thousands of years of evolution. I wholely believe that if the human condition had remained to be "Survival of the Fittest" as opposed to "Equal opportunity for everyone," the human race would be completely different right now. Our "super-athletes" would be dime-a-dozen and our supermodels would be of average attractiveness.

Darwin was a very insightful man, we would do well to remember that.

Re:Gene advances.

[1u3hr]

if the human condition had remained to be "Survival of the Fittest" as opposed to "Equal opportunity for everyone," the human race would be completely different right now.

This "equal opportunity" idea didn't have much impact till the 18th Century (French and American Revolutions). Even then, it had little impact on daily life till perhaps post WWII. So this process, if it exists at all, has had little chance to degrade the human race, and that in only a few First World countries.

Look at some places much closer to "red in tooth and claw" life, like, say, most of Africa, Bangladesh, etc. There the levels of health, education and intelligence (because of childhood dietary deficiency, not inherent genetics, before anyone gets excited) are quite a bit lower than fat complacent First World countries.

Further, it takes many generations of breeding to change the characteristics of a species. As we're not fruitflies, this is centuries of real time, and if we're still around at all we will have gene technology all worked out and be able to design our descendants (or even redesign ourselves).

Re:Gene advances.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really not too hard to get a superior human race. Just don't let stupid or fat people procreate. Darwin didn't need any of them gene therapies to figure that one out.

That would pretty much eliminate the human race, jackass.

The Real Human Genome Project

[Mars Ultor]

While I'm certainly not a learned expert, as a new graduate of an Honours Genetics program in Canada, I feel I must point out a few misconceptions found in the story intro.

I let out an audible groan over the 'revelation' that the human genome contains at most 40,000 genes, compared to the original estimate of ~150,000. I was relieved when I noticed that the article linked to dated to 2001. This makes sense, since that discrepancy was first discussed during my courses over two years ago.

The other grain of salt that needs to taken is the idea of a "completed" genome. The human genome is nearly sequenced, however it the annotation of the genome that matters most. To place this into context, the genome of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, is over 75% annotated. Currently only a small portion of the human genome is annotated, that is to say, the roads are mapped, and the streets (or in this case, genes) are identified and their function characterized. This is one of the most essential tasks still facing biologists today. Without knowing all the potential genes, as well as their function and expression patterns, the human genome is no better a guide than using a globe to navigate the streets of Toronto (or New York, take your pick).

As it has been mentioned before, I won't delve too far into the fact that a given stretch of DNA can code for genes in two different directions, and in three different "frames" per direction. On top of this, the mRNA produced from the DNA can be spliced in numerous ways. A single expanse of DNA can produce countless different proteins - and its proteins, not genes, that carry out all the functions our body needs to survive.

Humans are extremely complex, but as we go about our 'very' important lives, it's humbling to know that on the surface, we do not contain many more genes than some other 'lesser' forms of life on this planet.

Re:The Real Human Genome Project

[Avakado]

Humans are extremely complex, but as we go about our 'very' important lives, it's humbling to know that on the surface, we do not contain many more genes than some other 'lesser' forms of life on this planet.

We also have far fewer teeth than sharks.

Counting method

[pdan]

As far as I know, there is no easy method to distinguish a gene from other parts of DNA sequence. In order to get such an estimate heurictic algorithms that look for characteristic patterns in the sequence are used. Therefore it is hard to say about proofs. These are only estimates, which can be more or less justified. Searching methods are of course tested on other organisms which are better known (e.g. Drosophilia), but we are not really aware of differences and similarities in gene expression of mentioned fruit fly and human.

Besides the number of genes doesn't have to determine anything. It is just the number of different proteins that can be produced in the living cell. What makes an organism really complex is how and when these proteins are produced and this is determined by gene expression which is poorly understood. It can be compared to different methods of encoding. 8 bits are 8 different signals but offer 256 different combinations. If "complexity" of a living organism is exponential to the number of genes, than one gene makes a difference.

Re:Counting method

[Mars Ultor]

Of course, this is where the hard work begins. The genes are estimated, then Joe Schmoe scientist sticks a chunk of a 'putative' or possible gene in front of a promoter, drives the expression, and sees what happens. Sometimes nothing, sometimes a protein or functional mRNA is made. Unfortunately, I'm one of those schmucks who gets to go and test out all these possiblities.

Re:Counting method

[the gnat]

As far as I know, there is no easy method to distinguish a gene from other parts of DNA sequence. In order to get such an estimate heurictic algorithms that look for characteristic patterns in the sequence are used.

"Easy", no, but the methods are better than you think. It's been a while since I've read on this in detail, but there are three techniques which may be used, and which are usually combined:

1. De-novo gene finding. Genscan and its successor GenomeScan are good examples - they look for RNA splice sites (among other things).

2. cDNA matching - purified genes are located on the genome.

3. Homology searches. Find what regions of the genome match known proteins in human or other organisms, and satisfy the conditions for being genes. I think GenomeScan might do this as well.

Usually these methods are combined to some degree. There are all sorts of other things you can do as well; people are still trying to refine the yeast data set by integrating all sorts of experimental data. At any rate, you won't get an exact number for quite a while, but the estimates are almost certainly in the right range. The problem is that the number alone isn't particularly meaningful.

Re:Counting method

[TheWhaleShark]

There are two broad categories for gene prediction: "signal sensing" and "content sensing". Signal sensing methods look for the readily identifiable signaling sequences of DNA: start and stop codons, splicing sites, restriction sites, etc. Content sensing, at least in eukaryotes, looks for exons and introns and such. Using a combination of these two methods (done, of course, with computers), gene finding in eukaryotes has been greatly simplified.

Of course, the real issue is the reliability of the software used. Most software is only accurate (for eukaryotes) around 60 - 75% of the time.

Did you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, the genome publishes YOU!

Re:This is Great

[k-0s]

Maybe you lost 110,000 genes but I was luckier, I only lost 100,000. I'm on the high side. Unfortunately the 100,000 I lost account for good looks, intelligence and strength.

HAHAHA

[geekoid]

Mobo finds you puny earthling, with your 40,000 genes, quite humorous, and worthy of being devoured.

Re:HAHAHA

[ShadowDrake]

Isn't it Morbo?

Or are we to be eaten by a very angry Elitegroup product?

On the Topic of Determinism vs. Stochasticity...

[Salis]

The assumption that each gene codes for one protein is usually false. But, regardless of that, there exists an additional "degree of freedom" that biological organisms can utilize in order to allow themselves to assume as many "states" of gene expression as possible.

The topic of stochastic gene expression is becoming more interesting recently because of further advances in studying single-cell gene expression and the design of genetic regulatory networks.

Because the concentrations of many gene regulatory proteins are so dilute/low, there exists significant fluctuations in the number of molecules that actually regulate the gene's expression. These fluctuations vary from time to time and from cell to cell, producing non-deterministic levels of gene expression. The non-determinism (called stochasticity) can cause some very interesting behavior that leads to numerous potential 'states' of gene expression versus a single, deterministic state.

So, on a very real basis, probability has a lot to do with how certain genes are expressed. Successful biological systems, however, hate random chance unless it's advantageous. These certain genes that utilize the internal noise of a "small" biological system do so because it gives some sort of advantage to them..either coding for numerous possible states with the least number of genes or for allowing the cell to randomly pick between possible states in order to create a heterogeneous cell population.

If you're interested in some scientific articles, try Adam Arkin's paper from 1998, detailing a stochastic simulation of a virus that attacks E. coli cells. The virus randomly selects whether it will replicate itself quickly and burst the cell open or integrate itself into the bacteria's genome and sit dormant. The probability of each event depends on the state of the bacteria at the time of infection. If the bacteria is starved, the virus goes dormant. If it's healthy, the virus goes into replication mode.

Salis

Re:This is Great

[Anonymous Coward]

And Paul Erdös was a hundered-million years old.

Ha!

[rabtech]

Just wait until some drunken researcher runs the whole thing through un-zip and finds a hidden video from God.

On a more serious note, is anyone shocked to learn that our genetic code is compressed? Seems more efficient to me.

Re:Genome Surprize - Speaking of Emeril

[telstar]

Speaking of Emeril!

Bam!!

genomics is only the first step

[EngMedic]

remember, folks.. just because we have a genetic sequence is about 10% of the story. Proteomics is the next big thing, and there are a lot more protiens than genes.

Well... Duh.

[Aetrix]

All of these observations of having 140,000 genes were made well before ANYTHING had been sequenced, worms, corn, or humans. That was way back in the ancient days of Genetics when geneticists didn't realize how much interaction and recombination there was between genes. Many of the gene estimates came from crude estimates involving antibodies in the early 80s. We knew that we had tens of thousands of antibodies and so they assumed we had oodles of genes to make antibodies. Geneticists realized later that antibodies are coded out about 1/100 as many genes which are have lower than average "quality control standards" than other genes. Antibodies are created from mixing and matching segments of genes.

The more research is published, this phenomenon becomes more and more frequent. So the Central Dogma of Genetics (DNA->RNA->Protien) is slowly breaking down. Genes don't code for just one protein.

GODDAMNIT

[Anonymous Coward]

WHERE DO I DOWNLOAD A COPY?

Re:I thought so + a note about chimps

[hlee]

Indeed, I don't think the numbers mean anything.

I remember reading somewhere that we are nearly (98.5%) genetically identical to chimps. That measly 1.5% is responsible for the gulf of difference between us and our closest primate. Are there any studies out there just focus on that magical 1.5%?

Racing

[Rui del-Negro]

A race (in humans as in other animals, or even vegetables) is a set of characteristics. Characteristics that evolved mainly as a consequence of environment and culture. If a large number of people share a common set of (physical, anatomical, etc.) characteristics, they can be said to be of the same race. These races (large groups of similar people) were defined during a time when people tended to live their whole lives in one place, and therefore have children with people of the same (or a very similar) group.

As people started to travel across continents (which didn't really happen until some four or five hundred years ago), new "races" were created. Some of these combinations of the "traditional" races became so common that they got their own names (ex., a child of a caucasian and a central or southern african is usually called a mestiço or mulato).

So to answer your question: if a child is born to an interracial couple (meaning two people of clearly identifiable and distinct races), that child will usually inherit characteristics of both races. The child's race? Since you don't say which two races you're talking about, what kind of answer do you expect? It's like asking "if I mix two colours, what colour do I get?"... well, depends on the colours you mix, doesn't it?

As global travel becomes more common, and as cultures influence each other, more and more "races" will be created. Instead of a rainbow with 7 well-defined colours, you'll have a smooth spectrum. The original colours will still be there, but the boundaries between them will be so blurred that it won't be possible to tell where one ends and the other begins. But this doesn't mean that we won't be able to distinguish red from orange, or orange from yellow. It just means that some colours could be classified as either (or we could give them fancy new names and charge extra).

I have no idea what you mean by "the genetic difference between races". A race is a set of many different characteristics. It's a "meta-characteristic". You won't find a gene that determines your "race". But you will probably find a gene (or a small group of genes) that determines the tone of your skin, and another that determines the colour of your hair. And another that determines the colour of your eyes. And another that determines how curly your hair is. And another that determines how long your nose is. And so on. And if a large group of people share a significant amount of features, voilá, you have a race.

A "race" is simply an easy way to refer to a large set of similar elements. Take cars and bikes, for example (two "races" of personal transportation). What distinguishes a car from a motorcycle? The car has four wheels, the motorcycle only has two. But a bicycle also has two wheels, and it's not the same as a motorcycle. And a van has four wheels and it's not a car. To make things even more complicated, a car may not share a single part with another car, but it's still a car, just like the first one. So what defines something as "a car"? A lot of different things, some more important than others. Generally, you know one when you see it. And when something new comes up, it doesn't take long for people to come up with a new name, like "SUV" or "mini-van". Is this wrong, or pointless? I don't think so; it's an easy way to transmit information. If you say something is "a mini-van", people will not automatically know what it looks like or how it drives, but they will know more about it than if you say pretty much any other seven-letter word. Human language (and "mental filing") is based on hints, not complete descriptions. It's not terribly accurate, but it's very fast and, since the receiver has a pretty good processor (brain), you can usually trust him to "decompress" your hint into meaningful data.

So what if a person's basic "racial" features (hair, eye and skin colour, etc.) are determined only be a handful of genes? They're still very visible and (socially) very relevant differences. If you think the discove

Re:Racing

[weaselgrrl]

As people started to travel across continents (which didn't really happen until some four or five hundred years ago), new "races" were created. Some of these combinations of the "traditional" races became so common that they got their own names (ex., a child of a caucasian and a central or southern african is usually called a mestiço or mulato).

?? Until 400 to 500 years ago? Then how did the Americas get populated well over 10,000 years ago? And what about all of those modern humans who came out of Africa to populate the earth more than 40,000 years ago?

Humans are nomadic and have been wandering around the globe on foot, in boats and on horseback for tens of thousands of years. In doing so, we have been mixing here and wiping out populations there and have been doing so for millenia. It is now thought that sub-saharan Africa, which European/Americans saying is "black" in "race," had very distinct "racial" populations (including the red headed ones mentioned in an earlier post). The notion of "Native American" as a "race" is also being falsified because there is suggestive evidence that the first americans came not only over the straights in Alaska but also by sea from Australia. (note: I say "race" in quotes...)

Race, socially, is a culturally constructed concept and most anthropologists and sociologists no longer accept the term as meaningful or valid (e.g. race is semanitically void). From a biological standpoint it is not accepted by all biologists although some find the term convenient when talking about "racial" characteristics such as diseases that have genetic causes and are highly common in certain populations. Race in other species is used to speak about sub-species and there are NO EXISTING SUB-SPECIES among homo sapiens. This lack of race has been supported, so far, by the results of the genome project.

Perhaps a more useful is the term ETHNICITY, of which there are 1000s. As a population isolates itself for a period of generations within an ethnic group, they will have more similar genes than those outside of their ethnic group. This is a meaning when talking about diseases (such as Tay-Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews). Likewise, we can define ethnic supergroups (combining multiple related ethnic groups) when talking about more wide spread genetic correlations.

So what happens when a child is created by a caucasian and a central or southern african as you suggest? Well, genetically they are the start of a new ethnicity. And this is nothing new -- humans have been doing this for tens of thousands of years.

Re:Racing

[drooling-dog]

So to answer your question: if a child is born to an interracial couple (meaning two people of clearly identifiable and distinct races), that child will usually inherit characteristics of both races. The child's race? Since you don't say which two races you're talking about, what kind of answer do you expect? It's like asking "if I mix two colours, what colour do I get?"... well, depends on the colours you mix, doesn't it?

That's exactly my point. It defeats the notion of race as a well-defined, discrete genetic concept. There is no genetically-based answer to that question, except that the child will likely share characteristics of both "races". But there is a cultural answer to the question. When one "race" is socially dominant over the other, the child will be classified with the subjugate race. It was once the law here in the U.S., in fact.

As global travel becomes more common, and as cultures influence each other, more and more "races" will be created. Instead of a rainbow with 7 well-defined colours, you'll have a smooth spectrum. The original colours will still be there, but the boundaries between them will be so blurred that it won't be possible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Again, that was exactly the point that I made. The clusters of genotypes that underly our notion of race have blurred boundaries and are not cleanly separated. Moreover, the genetic variation involved is a very small part of the variation that defines us as individuals, regardless of race.

I have no idea what you mean by "the genetic difference between races".

I never used that phrase; maybe you're debating someone else?

A race is a set of many different characteristics. It's a "meta-characteristic". You won't find a gene that determines your "race". But you will probably find a gene (or a small group of genes) that determines the tone of your skin, and another that determines the colour of your hair. And another that determines the colour of your eyes. And another that determines how curly your hair is. And another that determines how long your nose is. And so on. And if a large group of people share a significant amount of features, voilá, you have a race.

Generally the association between genes and specific physical characteristics (like nose length) isn't one-to-one. Genes that are expressed in early development, for example, can have very widespread consequences. Sometimes the critical difference isn't in the gene itself, but in when, where, and to what degree it's expressed, or in what happens to the gene product after it's expressed. It's really a big & beautiful mess in there!

So what if a person's basic "racial" features (hair, eye and skin colour, etc.) are determined only be a handful of genes? They're still very visible and (socially) very relevant differences.

Exactly. They are socially relevant because we are taught that they are socially relevant. That's culture, which was the original point of my post. Hard as it is, if you look objectively at the clusters of characteristics that we use for racial classification, they're really fairly minor, and not even very consistent. Our culture trains us to amplify our perception of these diffences and their importance. If we were all identical except for, say, our eye color, then I have no doubt that this one difference would have been used through history as the basis for the same kind of slavery and oppression that we've seen based on other factors.

Re:Racing

[Rui del-Negro]

> When one "race" is socially dominant over the other, the
> child will be classified with the subjugate race.

Yes. A child of, say, a white and a black, will tend to be seen as black by the "pure" whites and as white by the "pure" blacks (I mean "pure" as in "someone who belongs to a clearly defined 'large' race"). But this is because he or she will look different. When you start to have enough people with similar features, you have a new "race", and both "pure" blacks and "pure" whites will start seeing him / her as a "pure gray".

> Generally the association between genes and
> specific physical characteristics (like nose length)
> isn't one-to-one.

Not that anyone has a clue. :^)

> They are socially relevant because we are taught
> that they are socially relevant.

No, they are socially relevant because if you have a village where everyone's black and one guy is white, he's going to look different. And that alone is socially relevant. Just as being extremely tall is relevant. It won't necessarily make people treat you better or worse, but it will make you "stand out"; it will make you more noticeable.

> Hard as it is, if you look objectively at the
> clusters of characteristics that we use for racial
> classification, they're really fairly minor,

And my point is: so what? Going back to the digital world, if you compare a picture to another where every pixel is 1% brighter, you're unlikely to notice the difference. But if you compare it to a picture where a group of 4 or 5 pixels in the middle of the sky is red, you'll notice the difference immediately. And yet (in bits and bytes) this picture is a lot more "similar" to the first one than the picture that was 1% brighter.

The difference in "the number of genes", or whatever, is irrelevant. It's the influence they have on our appearance and behaviour that counts. And if a gene makes you a different colour from the people around you (or twice as tall, or gives you three noses instead of the usual two :=), it's still a big difference, even if it's controlled by a single gene and all other genes are exactly the same.

> Our culture trains us to amplify our perception
> of these diffences and their importance.

It's not our culture, it's our brain. As I wrote in another message in this thread, human language (data processing and communication) is based on hints. When I say, "I had dinner", your brain automatically decodes that into a sequence of actions (me sitting down with a plate in front of me, eating with a knife and fork, etc.). I don't need to describe the entire process, I trust your brain to do the "decompression" and reconstruction. But if there was something unusual about my dinner (ex., I ate lying down on the floor), and if I want you to know that, I'll have to specify it (I don't need you to ask me). Likewise, if I'm white and you're white and I'm telling about this hot chick I met, you'll tend to assume that she's white too, and I'll tend to omit that, because it's "unnecessary network traffic". If she was in fact black, I would tend to mention that, because I knew that you would probably assume she was white.

Some people see this as discrimination and say "Why did you have to mention she was black? Does it make any difference?" But they're wrong. Mentioning she was black is perfectly normal (after all, I was describing her to you); the "strange" thing is why wouldn't I mention it if she was white. And the answer is: optimisation. If I know (or at least believe) that you will automatically fill in the blanks with the correct information, I won't bother to transmit that information. There is nothing "wrong" or bad about this, it's simply the way our brains work, and we're actually starting to make our computers work the same way. When you have a lot of processing power on each end, and a very slow communications channel between the

Re:Racing

[Rui del-Negro]

> ?? Until 400 to 500 years ago? Then how did the
> Americas get populated well over 10,000 years ago?
> And what about all of those modern humans who came
> out of Africa to populate the earth more than 40,000
> years ago?

All that happened very, very slowly. No single individual travelled across the world (that only started in the 15th century, and only became really common in the 20th). 20 thousand years ago, everyone lived their life in groups of similar people. Races changed very slowly, based on their environment, not based on mixes between clearly distinct races. It was precisely that isolation and localised reproduction that gave birth to our current "big" races. If you go back 500 or 1000 years you'll find that between each two "big races" there is usually a significant natural barrier (sea, desert, mountains, etc.), that made those two groups evolve more or less independently.

> Race, socially, is a culturally constructed
> concept and most anthropologists and sociologists no
> longer accept the term as meaningful or valid
> (e.g. race is semanitically void).

Hey, for some catholics "contraception" is not a meaningful concept because, in their view of reality, people only have sex when they want children. Doesn't mean that - in the real world - contraception (and race) aren't pretty relevant concepts. Don't make me quote the Iraqi information minister again.

> there are NO EXISTING SUB-SPECIES among homo sapiens.

In one word: lawyers. Oh, ok, you said homo sapiens.

Define "sub-species". The concepts of "species", "phylum", "family", etc., are completely artificial. They basically describe groups of beings with similar characteristics, they're not based on any deep genetic similarities or even on evolutionary paths. Taxonomy is a practical thing, not some sort of "mathematics of life". Some people are now adoptimg a more systematic approach to it, but personally I think it's a bit of a waste of time. Biology (like physics) needs tools, it doesn't need "the truth"; that's for tormented philosophers and for information ministers.

> This lack of race has been supported, so far, by
> the results of the genome project.

What is your problem? The word? Stop calling it "race" and start calling it "frex", then. Better? People of different frex (physical / anatomical / physiognomical / capillary characteristics) look different, and we need a simple way to tell them apart without having to describe every single aspect of their bodies. Just as we have "man" and "woman", although men and women belong to the same species. And just as we have "coal" and "diamond" although, deep down, both are made of carbon. Reality is an interpretation. Raw data is useless and meaningless.

> Perhaps a more useful is the term ETHNICITY,

So it seems you problem is the word. You should read Alice in Wonderland (especially the part with Humpty Dumpty). I'm sticking with frex.

RMN
~~~

Re:Racing

[drooling-dog]

Yes. A child of, say, a white and a black, will tend to be seen as black by the "pure" whites and as white by the "pure" blacks (I mean "pure" as in "someone who belongs to a clearly defined 'large' race"). But this is because he or she will look different. When you start to have enough people with similar features, you have a new "race", and both "pure" blacks and "pure" whites will start seeing him / her as a "pure gray".

Have to disagree. How many "black" people in this country (US) are "pure black"? Even if you assume that there is such a thing as "pure" white or black (and know how to define it), there has been plenty of mixing over the time since Africans were brought here. Unless you just immigrated from Africa, chances are you have some caucasian ancestry. By your definition, there are actually very few "black" people in America. In general, it's closest to the truth here to say that if at least one of your parents is black, then you are black, too. It is true because society will treat you that way, and through your life you'll have the experiences of a black person.

No, they are socially relevant because if you have a village where everyone's black and one guy is white, he's going to look different. And that alone is socially relevant.

But we differ in a lot of ways other than skin color and the shape of our noses and lips. West Africans look "different" than East Africans, but few white Americans would make the distinction. Some people are tall and some are short, but we don't consider them racially different just because of that (although you could argue that there is height-based discrimination). Race is important because it carries a lot of historical baggage, and gives a convenient cue for social stratification.

Likewise, if I'm white and you're white and I'm telling about this hot chick I met, you'll tend to assume that she's white too, and I'll tend to omit that, because it's "unnecessary network traffic". If she was in fact black, I would tend to mention that, because I knew that you would probably assume she was white.

It would be a pretty good bet. But you'd be wrong in my case!;-)

Some people see this as discrimination and say "Why did you have to mention she was black? Does it make any difference?" But they're wrong. Mentioning she was black is perfectly normal (after all, I was describing her to you); the "strange" thing is why wouldn't I mention it if she was white.

I agree with you here. In mixed company, race is one of the first things we notice in others. It's the same whether you're white or black or asian or whatever. Black people have terms to describe shades of skin color like eskimos have words for snow. I'm white and my girlfriend is black, and we've been seeing each other for quite a long time. Someone asked me once whether this has made me less race-conscious, and was surprised when I replied that if anything, it has probably made me more so. While it has undoubtedly made me much more comfortable about racial differences, it has also made me much more aware of what race is and what it means in our society. Never had to think much about it before that.

Well, it's too nice out there to stay inside clacking away on this. Thanks for a good discussion!

Re:Racing

[weaselgrrl]

All that happened very, very slowly. No single individual travelled across the world (that only started in the 15th century, and only became really common in the 20th). 20 thousand years ago, everyone lived their life in groups of similar people.

Wrong. Perhaps you need a year or two of world history, history of world civilizations and study of pre-history?

I am sorry to say that your view of the world seems to be heavily shaped by a kind of history that starts with the rise of the European powers in the 15th century as they started to shake out of the dark ages. Then, everything before that is looked at as "dark" and "backward."

Just when the Europeans were starting to get their modern sea legs (15th century), the Chinese were undergoing a political decision that changed world history for them -- they decided to retire their great navy. The Chinese had created a great fleet of ships and domintated trade routes along the Asian Pacific and Indian Ocean coasts all the way to Africa.

1000 years ago Vikings sailed to North America, first colonizing Greenland and then attempting to colonize modern day Canada but at least setting up a temporary system of resource harvesting while at the same time trading with people in the middle east. Changing weather conditions seems to be the biggest factor for them giving up on the North Atlantic trade route but they had it open for much longer than a single generation. The Vikings spend a good deal of time trading and had trade routes all over the North Atlantic (across the ocean), Northern Europe and Western Asia. Looking at my globed, they were covering a lot of ground and were doing it in a span of months/years just like the post-15th century Europeans you mentioned. They wrote about their exploits so you can read what they have to say.

Then there is the silk road which is over 2000 years old, creating a trade route from China to Europe.

There is now ample evidence showing that thousands of years ago there were boat-based trade routes going from southwestern India, up the coast and around to the middle east and then down along the coast of Africa.

There were extensive pre-historic trade routes through the middle east, north african coast and mediterranean that extended up the atlantic into Ireland many thousands of years ago.

There have been mass invasions and mass movements of people in one generation (if not 1 to 5 years) all throughout the past 10,000 years, permently changing the ethinic makeup of towns and cities through intermarriage and/or displacement.

It isn't as if in the 15th cent suddenly people started to travel the world, trade with other people and start mass resettlements all in the span of one year or one generation. This has been going on for 10,000 years.

Hit the books!!! You'll find out wonderful things about our history and pre-history. And you'll see the same themes repeated over and over again. LOL!

Re:Racing

[Rui del-Negro]

> Have to disagree. How many "black" people in this
> country (US) are "pure black"? Even if you assume that
> there is such a thing as "pure" white or black (and know
> how to define it),

Basically a guy is "pure" black when he says he's black and most people in his society agree he's black (same thing for white, indian, etc.). It's not an exact science. I don't mean pure as in "racially pure" (whatever that means), just as in "unambiguously X".

> By your definition, there are actually very few
> "black" people in America.

And what definition would that be?

> if at least one of your parents is black, then you are black,
> too. It is true because society will treat you that way,
> and through your life you'll have the experiences of a
> black person.

Well, depends on the society, I guess. I live in Portugal, and racial alchemy has always been a hobby of ours. For example, there's a country in Africa (Cabo Verde) that was basically used for "natural genetic engineering" during the 16th / 17th century. It consisted of several desert but fertile islands, and was colonised by "hand-picked" individuals from Portugal and mainland Africa (Angola, Guiné, São Tomé e Príncipe, etc.). The result was a country where everyone looked like Hale Berry (ie, somewhere between "white" and "black", and very, very good-looking). Yes, the portuguese navigators did trade slaves (mostly african), but the justification was always more "cultural superiority" (religion playing a big role in that) than racial superiority.

> West Africans look "different" than East Africans, but
> few white Americans would make the distinction.

It's not a matter of "would", it's a matter of "need to". When you have a very obvious difference, you tend to ignore the details. It's like saying a PC is "Intel" or "AMD", when in fact there are a lot more differences than just the brand of the CPU (there's the model, the chipset, the type of RAM, etc.).

One thing that annoys me about the US of A is this new trend to refer to blacks as "african-americans". Were they born in Africa? They weren't? They were born in America? Then they're americans, period. Might as well refer to white americans as "euro-americans", and in fact to europeans as "afro-europeans", because they certainly had some african ancestors. So maybe a black american should be an "afro-american-euro-african" or something like that.

I keep remembering a line from a movie (can't rememeber which movie) where, during a boxing match, some character said "look at this, you have a white guy fighting a black guy and the commentator can only distinguish them by the colour of their trunks".

> Some people are tall and some are short, but we don't
> consider them racially different just because of that

Because height tends to vary too much within a society. Certain societies where all individuals are significantly shorter than in neighbouring societies (ex., pygmies) are usually considered as separate "races".

RMN
~~~

Gnome surprise

[slovin8]

In related news, a new study revelead that the users of gnome are between 27,000 and 40,000, contrary to previous estimates of 140,000. Unfortunately, this means that Gnome developers are not as hard-wired as they were once thought to be and new karma-whoring strategies must be adapted.

Missed the point

[Rui del-Negro]

I think you didn't understand what that sentence meant. A "social construct" does not means that people's races are determined by culture; it means that societies (cultures) determine what consitutes "a race". In other words, "races" are just a simplified (and not necessarily accurate) way to define large sets of characteristics.

But in fact culture does shape races, up to a point. For example, if you have a tribe (or country, or religion, etc.) where green-eyed women are considered "better", they will have a better chance to reproduce and green yees will tend to become more dominant in that culture. Same goes for any other characteristic. Call it "evolution by cultural selection". Cultures change faster than continents drift, though, so the influence of cultural selection (in the long term, at least) is not as big as that of the natural environment.

RMN
~~~

Re:Missed the point

[Pharmboy]

But in fact culture does shape races, up to a point. For example, if you have a tribe (or country, or religion, etc.) where green-eyed women are considered "better", they will have a better chance to reproduce and green yees will tend to become more dominant in that culture. Same goes for any other characteristic. Call it "evolution by cultural selection". Cultures change faster than continents drift, though, so the influence of cultural selection (in the long term, at least) is not as big as that of the natural environment.

While this may have been true thousands of years ago, I believe that we are no longer evolving in a Darwin like manner. Examples are life lengthening procedures and medicines that allow people who would have died as a teen (diabetes, injuries, even small pox) to instead grow old enough to have children and pass those genes on.

Also, not just the green eyed people breed anymore. Its not longer a matter of certain people creating offspring. Even the ugliest of us can now spread our ugly genes :) I didn't mean to argue that culture shapes race, my main point is that it is BOTH, and perhaps some other stuff we don't understand yet. As smart as we are, (or think we are) we can't even cure a common cold. Maybe there is more to genetics than we understand yet. I would bet my lunch money on it.

"genetic" does not mean "hard-wired"

[roffe]

It's been a popular misconception in the popular media for a long time that traits that are learned are malleable, whereas traits that are innate or genetic are not. This is not the case. The malleability of a trait depends on how it is implemented in the body, not on whether it is inborn or learned.

The simplistic view of the importance of genetic contribution probably stems from the way genetics is taught in school. Your eye color is genetically determined and eye color does not change. However, the reason why eye color does not change is not that it is inherited by genetic inheritance, but because eyes are constructed the way they are.

This is one of the reasons why psychologists worry much less about heritability of traits than they used to. The malleability of any given trait remains an empirical question. Your genes don't know how heritable they are.

For an interesting discussion of heritability and malleability, read Plomin et al's Behavioural Genetics - or the brief version here.

Re:"genetic" does not mean "hard-wired"

[Anonymous Coward]

bla bla

bla bla bla!

BLLAAHHHRRRGG!!!!

Now that bits done...

[thogard]

How long is it going to take before they fiugre out "now we've got the code segment, where is the data segment?"

It's a plot!

[Anonymous Coward]

By the La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo! The count is actually over 100,000, they're just hiding the extra ones to help them make clones. Clones! Hiding in arms! Liquid clones! Solid clones! WE HAVE OH SO MANY GENES! Revel in our time!

Woo Hoo....

[xA40D]

But so what? What's this mean? All the news programs tell me how this is going to bring an end to disease a longer life for all of us etc., etc. But nobody ever tells how. And everybody is supposed to have unique DNA, so whose DNA have they decoded? Not mine. So how does this help me?

It seems to me there is an awful lot of hype surrounding the Human Genome Project.

I can print my kernel on A4 as 1's and 0's - Does this mean an end to security vunerablilities an better use of memory?

Re:Woo Hoo....

[tfrayner]

Good analogy. It's just that now we've got the kernel printed out in binary we can think about reverse engineering it back into an understandable programming language :-P

Of course, this should also give you some idea of the scale of the problem which remains...

Re:Woo Hoo....

[fferreres]

We don't know the programming language much, so now we investigating it. Like trying to reverse engineering how C looks by looking at the source and playing arround with what we now is a compiled binary. Of course, C is a little a bit simpler than this, so we'll have to way a bit.

This news kind of look like we've figured out how many subroutines are there. The CPU rules are not very novel as it's physics itself.

The cure to cancer will come with a huge cost to human race. We'll know we are beautifull constructs and nothing more, and a lot of people will be "tweaking" us or trying to destroy us. This will much worse than the nanotech gray goo predictions. I want to answer, but I know many people will commit suicide even before they fully understand the implications. The "cure to cancer" looks like a joke compared to the change understanding us will bring along.

Biology, not mathematics.

[Hodr]

So, ahh, why is it they can sequence the thing, they can publish the thing, but they can't figure out how large it is with better than say, %60 margin of error?

say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have realized this once they mapped the entire genome a few years ago though, right?

Re:This is Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. It's always in the last place you look.

You got it all wrong

[johannesg]

The Human Genome project was started when the Human KeDE project decided to base its work on a closed-source gene.

;-)

La-Le-Lu-Li-Lo

[Anonymous Coward]

La-Le-Lu-Li-Lo

We Are The Patriots.

Remember what Emma said?
Did you count all the genes? How do we even know there are that many to start with?

La-Le-Lu-Li-Lo ...What The Hell?

I knew this in 1980.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did. Here's proof - I copied it from a paper I wrote in 1980:

"There are between 27,000 and 40,000 genes in the human genome. It is now 1980."

Nobel Prize?

Errata

[boaworm]

Hum, never post lying in your bed being all sleepy.

H. Vulgare is "barley", while Triticum Aestivum is "bread wheat".
Sorry about that.

Re:Substantially fewer?

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be some sort of DMCA violation (Dont Make Children Americans) so I suggest everyone not have sex until the courts have hashed this out.

You're posting this to Slashdot?

Metal Gear Solid II: Sons of Liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

Have anyone played Metal Gear Solid for PS2? In the game the goverment was hiding from the masses genes that could be used to make super soldiers.

Genome researcher insult...

[Alsee]

Nah nah! You only have 39,999 genes! *I* have 40,001 genes! You SUCK! Hahahahaha!

-

Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having the strangest feeling of deja-vu....

Stereotypes

[CrazyJim0]

I wonder if genes regulating one attribute in a person also regulate a second attribute.

Machine that can decode you

[Puu]

Insert Soviet Russia joke here.

Some heresy.

[sekensirazu]

More interestingly than anything else here is the persistence of the idea that humans are in some way 'higher' than other life forms on earth.

More complex, perhaps... but complexity, as is evidenced by, say, American tax law, is not to be confused with supremacy. It figures, though, in a culture that necessitates hierarchy, that most would function under these ideas as if they were universally, empirically, and philosophically true.

Allow me some heresy...

Surprise! We're not the end of creation here. :) We are just paving the way for Version 3.1b4. It's almost comical that at this point we insist on superiority, when everything we learn is equally valid at disproving such... arrogance.

Another run for bittorrent

[jafuser]

What? No download links?

Grr.. guess I'll have to search guntella for "human genome".

It's Just like Programming

[bill_mcgonigle]

Fewer codes means reduced chance for error.

Let's take a couple examples from CS:
Scripting Languages
Procedural Languages/OOP (code reuse)
Crosscutting

Even using these techniques it's common practice to reduce/abstract code until you just can't get any more efficiency out of a system.

Each of these techniques makes the program shorter, contain fewer errors, and therefore better.

Then add in the fact that all of these genes need to be reproduced flawlessly a few million times a day in each creature. If there's an error rate, increasing the code length is just going to increase the expressed errors.

So, let's hear it for smaller gene counts - it's good engineering!

Re:It's Just like Programming

[iabervon]

Actually, the human genome is a huge hack. Half of it is commented-out code, a quarter is just there to get the preprocessor to work and emacs to highlight it legibly, and a quarter is actually just run through the preprocessor to make config files. Oh, and while the main package contains the compiler, the power supply is a separate package, with its own compiler which is basically the same. It's a wonder it manages to contain any genes at all.

Re:It's Just like Programming

[Anonymous Coward]

Aha! Finally, proof that Bill Gates isn't God!

Re:It's Just like Programming

[southpolesammy]

Well, one thing is for sure though -- Human v4.1 is the most fault-tolerant program ever designed...or the least, depending upon your viewpoint...

Proof by analogy

[smittyoneeach]

is fraud, but consider that the genes are really instruments in an orchestra pit, merely supporting the symphony of life.

Those surprised at the low number of instruments ought to study the problem a bit.

There is a bar in Maastricht, Netherlands with the following motto on the wall (in Dutch):

"Suddenly I realized just how complex the situation really was."

Perhaps one of the continental /.ers could be so kind as to reply with the name of the establishment...

Stupid papers trying to be "Scientific"....

[shunterman]

Actually, this is incredibly old. And wrong. You see, they tag new genes by searching for the locations where genes are transcribed (I won't go into the details, but there are deviations in base-pair frequency from normal "random" sequence near and inside genes due to transcriptional regulation and triggering). So once the genome is sequence, it's simple enough to search for the appropriate sequence and say, "Aha! A gene!"

The problem is, of course, is that you only see one gene for each transcriptional site. In actuality, our total number of genes may be much larger. This is primarily due to alternative splicing.

pre-mRNA directly off transcription has a number of introns, or integral non-coding sequences. These are eliminated using splicing, cutting out the introns and reconnecting the exons. However, it has been showns that a number of these genes are spliced multiple ways - in particular, it has been shown that different numbers and organizations of exons can be achieved.

Thus, a single "transcriptional location" that has been tagged as a single gene in the original search may code for a variety of mRNAs, and hence varied polypeptides. This has so far been shown (not in humans) to deal particularly for on/off traits - ie, sex determination and the like. It also seems as if alternative splicing of one gene may regulate the alternative splicing of another, producing a cascade effect in cells that can entirely change the way they express genes.

Anyways, even this is years old. Sheesh. /. should be a bit more current, neh?

Re:Substantially fewer?

[einhverfr]

You can't patent a gene because it does not fall under a device or process. And lets face it, prior art exists.

You could patent the idea of modifying a specific gene for certain uses, I suppose....

But IANAL....

There are several aspects to the genome--- Including genetic diagnostics, and gene therapy. These raise significant social and medical questions, and we will see a lot of opposition in the widespread use of many of these technologies.

So, I think that the genome is an important project for our understandinfg of ourselves, but I think the patent issues are too much too soon and many companies may find that during the life of their patents, they will get very little use out of them.

Re:Substantially fewer?

[Pharmboy]

You're posting this to Slashdot?

LOL. If you had not posted as AC, I would gladly buy you a beer for pointing out my obvious error in assuming my previous comments would have any application here. I stand corrected.

Stupid Question

[jamesmrankinjr]

As human DNA differs somewhat from individual to individual, what does it mean to decipher the human genome? Isn't it a human genome that they're working on?

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Size matters

[Rui del-Negro]

Trade plays a very small role in the mixing of cultures and races. A handful of guys travelling from one country to another, dropping off some spices, taking some swords, and going back home don't cause any significant effects, race- or culture-wise (apart from the effect the trade itself has). Sure, some of them may leave a pregnant woman behind, but that woman's child is likely to marry someone in his or her own society (and culture, and race) and his or her "difference" becomes diluted, and unnoticeable after a couple of generations.

It wasn't until quite recently that significant communities from one country (and race) started moving to, and mixing with, other races and cultures. Not a dozen traders going back and forth - one thousand people immigrating.

Or do you think that the place where you're born determines what you look like, and that's why you have mostly blacks in Africa, mostly whites in Europe, etc.? According to your theory that "races have been mixing since pre-history", shouldn't we all look pretty much the same by now?

Maybe you should read some books about anthropology.

RMN
~~~

Re:Substantially fewer?

[Dirtside]

I was under the impression that the patents aren't for the gene sequences themselves, but rather for methods of detecting them... and there's a separate patent involved for each allele for each gene. Effectively, you've "patented the gene" because you're the only one with the right to test for its presence, but I can still copy my genome en masse and distribute it (i.e. reproduce) because I'm not testing for the gene, therefore not violating the patent.

No, you are using outdated terms here...

[weaselgrrl]

Rui,

According to the theory that I, most anthrologists, most sociologists and many biologists are collectively espousing, there is no such thing as race.

Race is a term that is taxinomically applied to sub-species for living organisms. A sub-species is a geographically, ecologically or temporally separated group that exhibit pronounded morphological differences from the species.

Modern science agrees that all human beings are of the species Homo sapiens and that there are currently no living subspecies. Neanderthalensis may have been a subspecies or may have been a separate species. The jury is still out on this one but leaning, last I heard toward classifying them as another species since it is now believed that they couldn't successfully interbreed with H. sapiens.

One hundred years ago Anthropologists did a good deal of work attempting to define races in order to show that "whites" were superior to "blacks" based on skull size and such. This worked has long since been tossed in the trash. With it, so went the term race when applied to humans.

But before that happened, various 19th century scientists of European decent classified between three and a dozen races. These ideas were taken up by others who had socio-political ideas about how to utilized the concepts of race in society and now we have lots of lay people who believe in race and no (or almost no) scientists who recognize it.

I don't know where you are from but in the US we often see forms collecting government demographic data that will use the term race (perhaps they have dropped it now? But I grew up with that term on forms) and then list five or so races: caucasian, african/black, asian, american indian, asian indian, hispanic. (And hispanic is clearly an ethnicity!!).

Asian indians (people of India) have been reclassified three times in the past 100 years in the US according to race. If I remember correctly, first as caucasian because of the Indo-Aryan "connection", then as black or asian (not sure which) and then finally as their own "race." There was a period of time when it was not clear among those who classified race if Italians were racially caucasian... Do you smell socio-political motivations here?

There is no such thing as race. There IS such a thing as populations and ethnicities. And no, this isn't substituting one term for another. There are thousands of ethnicities but the highest number of races that were enumerated by naturalists in the 19th century were a dozen.

Race is a mote concept. It doesn't exist. ....

On the other topic, which is a separate but related issue: migrations of people.

Sorry, people have been migrating in both small and large numbers for more than 500 years. Some migrations take 1000+ years and others have been done in less than a generation. Trade routes also open up migration routes.

While not, in my opinion, the best account of migrations, check out "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. His writing style is a bit pedantic (to me, as a trained anthropologist, to the point of complete annoyance; to my friend, a trained mathematician, the writing style was thought provoking -- YMMV). But he tackles the big picture of how people migrated all over the earth, populated it, and how certain populations managed to either interbreed or wipe out others on many different continents over many many more years then you are talking about, sometimes with surprising speed.

Good day.

Re:No, you are using outdated terms here...

[weaselgrrl]

Race is a mote concept. It doesn't exist. ....

Race is a MOOT concept.... and that's what I get for not proofreading...

So is everybody else, I guess...

[Rui del-Negro]

You sound a lot like minister al-Sahhaf. "There is no race, I tell you. We have destryed the race, the race is commiting suicide. The infidels are saying there is a race but they are lying, we will destroy them. Do you see any race here? I don't see any race. There is no race. Good day."

Nuclear physicists can "agree there is no such thing as chemistry" all they like. But it's still a meaningful word that describes a lot of tools and processes that human society uses daily. So "chemistry" is real. Since no-one can prove there is a god, "religion" can also be said to be "meaningless". But clearly it's not. People pray, people make speeches, people read their holy books, so clearly "religion" is also real, and so is god, in a way. And since different groups of people tend to have different characteristics, the concept of "human race" is clearly real too (as are the concepts of "height", "gender", "beauty", "strength", "intelligence", and so on - some more subjective than others, but all very much real).

There are very few things (none, atually) that you can establish as being "the ultimate truth". Cells aren't real, they're just groups of molecules. Molecules are just groups of atoms, atoms are just electrons and protons and neutrons, and so on. But it's not very practical, when I'm describing another person, to say "the superstrings that define the area of this universe's membrane that [...etc....]". It's easier to just say "she's white, with green eyes".

I doubt you can came up with a sentence of less than 6 words that gives more information about what "she" looks like.

As I said, if you have a problem with the word "race", feel free to come up with a different one (you don't like "frex", try "nabo"). As Humpty Dumpty said, "when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". To me, "race" is simply a way to quickly and broadly define a large group of physical characteristics, that would take too long to describe one by one. It's not 100% accurate, but usually it doesn't need to be. I really couldn't care less about "how many genes define a race" (which is meaningless, anyway), just as I couldn't care less about the chemical composition of marron glacé.

As to the migrations, I think this is pointless. You seem to think that a group of 10 or 20 people (or even 100) moving from one country to another over a generation (say, 20 years) will have a significant impact on "interracial breeding". Which is clearly wrong (see my messages above for why it's wrong, or just try looking at the real world). But hey, you also say "races don't exist" in the first place, so I guess the whole thing is irrelevant.

Maybe then you'd care to explain why - if people have been migrating and interbreeding in huge numbers for tens of thousands of years - the various human races (or "ethnicities", if you prefer) haven't all blended together into a single, worldwide race (or "ethnicity", or "frex", or "nabo", or whatever you want to call it).

RMN
~~~