Papua New Guinea fact of the day

by on December 22, 2010 at 2:45 pm in History, Science | Permalink

An analysis of this ancient DNA, published on Wednesday in Nature, reveals that the genomes of people from New Guinea contain 4.8 percent Denisovan DNA.

And who are they?

An international team of scientists has identified a previously shadowy human group known as the Denisovans as cousins to Neanderthals who lived in Asia from roughly 400,000 to 50,000 years ago…

Here is the article.  It is suggested that the Denisovans are quite distant from both humans and Neanderthals.  Here is the first cut take from Gene Expression.  Here is more, from John Hawks.  And more here.  Ongoing updates here.

razib December 22, 2010 at 10:57 am

thanks for the link tyler. i'll have a post which tries and pick the pieces that the media and great bloggers like john hawks leave unpicked later in the day. also, the nature article is good, but i recommend people without access and with to read the supplements. it's a small book, but jump the part obviously written by nick pattern & david reich in the middle.

god willing they'll put the draft genome at the UCSC browser soon.

Steve Sailer December 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm

As the evidence for human biodiversity continues to pile up, it will be interesting to see how many of the defenders of the conventional wisdom ever come out and say: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. The people I vilified were a lot more right than I was."

I'm not holding my breath.

dirk December 22, 2010 at 6:05 pm

"As the evidence for human biodiversity continues to pile up, it will be interesting to see how many of the defenders of the conventional wisdom ever come out and say: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. The people I vilified were a lot more right than I was.""

No doubt there were PC thugs like Gould who were intellectually dishonest regarding the Bell Curve. However in the more conventional sphere human biodiversity enthusiasts — at least some of the time — are rightly vilified for their sloppy, unscientific interpretation of the implications of human biodiversity.

At least in the Sailer-sphere and Roissy-sphere we see again and again the meme that racial diversity = violence. White nationalists have taken up human biodiversity as "evidence" that different ethnicities shouldn't live together.

Steve, your own VDare website is not much more than sensationalist crap about minority crime filled with lurid stories and pictures of this or that child who got murdered by this or that immigrant. It is all meant to increase emotion and decrease thought. It is worse than damn local TV news, and that's a pretty low standard to beat for muckraking.

Quit playing victim.

Randy McDonald December 22, 2010 at 6:51 pm

How does an increasingly complicated evolutionary history of our common species connect to highly contingent rankings of social, political, and economic influence?

dirk December 23, 2010 at 12:21 am

"How does an increasingly complicated evolutionary history of our common species connect to highly contingent rankings of social, political, and economic influence?"

Exactly. That is my question.

Yet somehow the human biodiversity enthusiasts — read their blogs and the comments on them if you don't believe me — have turned the subject of increasingly complicated evolutionary history into arguments for ethnic nationalism. Sound crazy? Does to me. But that is where many of them have already taken this. Steve Sailer and Roissy are heroes of the new white nationalist movement.

albert magnus December 23, 2010 at 5:34 am

How does our complex evolutionary history NOT affect our the social, political and economic culture?

Most countries on Earth are centered around a majority ethnic group, so how do you understand that without understanding genetic differences between populations?

If we lie to ourselves about these differences, how does that help?

And what policy does Steve Sailer propose which are so unreasonable?

zz December 23, 2010 at 8:57 am

I don't know about ethnic nationalism, but these results do suggest that the genetic differences in populations are deeper and more persistent than we previously believed. This is indirect support for the "Roissyite" in that it supports the premises used to justify his position.

dirk December 23, 2010 at 12:42 pm

"I don't know about ethnic nationalism, but these results do suggest that the genetic differences in populations are deeper and more persistent than we previously believed. This is indirect support for the "Roissyite" in that it supports the premises used to justify his position."

Once again, science proves the Roissyite right through indirect support!

Nevermind the fact that this country and the world at large are increasingly prosperous and peaceful! Look around at the obvious dystopia we live in! Trade-offs are bad! Wake up white man!

Remember when the world wasn't a dystopia? That was a good day.

Tom Grey December 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

Group IQ differences in America are probably more genetically influenced than by nurture, but welfare receiving single mothers are unlikely to lead to the best outcomes.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: