Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Jay Baker's column >>

JAY BAKER

Home Page
I'm just your average journalist/college student/fraternity guy/law school hopeful.
Articles Posted: 14  Links Seeded: 59
Member Since: 11/2006  Last Seen: 3/08/2010

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

The Journey of Man: The History of the Y-chromosome and The Illusion of Race

Thu Mar 1, 2007 4:01 PM EST
science, genetics, human-evolution, human-genome, journey-of-man, y-markers
By Jay Baker

Since the Y-chromosome is passed only from father to son, it can be used to trace the movement and ancestry of humans. Notice that while new mutations arise in subsequent generations, all the offspring of the 1st generation parent have his mutation. In this way, we know that even though all the members of the 6th generation have different Y-chromosomes, they all are related and descended from a common ancestor.
(Note: Mutations do not occur this often naturally, I just didn't have room for more than 6 generations ;-)

advertisement

This is the journey of your (and my) family. Scientists like Spencer Wells have been using our DNA to create a family tree of the world and they've found some rather surprising results. First of all, we're all related. In a sense, we're all cousins. Secondly, about 50,000 years ago, all humans were still in Africa and there were perhaps as few as 10,000 of us.

Our species was on the brink of destruction, but somehow, in the blink of a geological eye, we not only survived but conquered virtually every corner of the planet. Think of it like this: We share a common ancestor with apes and apes first appeared on the scene about 23 million years ago (or perhaps 25 million years ago). If we compress that 23 million years down to just one year, the first apes appear on January 1st. The first hominids (man-like apes who walk upright, think Australopithecus or Lucy) appear some time in late October. The first anatomically modern humans (if you dressed one in a business suit, he would be mostly indistinguishable from humans today) hit the scene about December 28. On the 31st of December, we leave Africa and by January 1st of the next year, we've managed to populate and inhabit virtually all of the planet.

So how do we know any of this? Well, some of this knowledge comes from the fossil record. But recently with the advent of genetics and computers to analyze the human genome, scientists have discovered how to use our DNA as a sort of time machine.

Here's how it works: All males have a Y-chromosome (it's what makes you male!) and they have just one, which is an exact copy of their father's Y-chromosome. Since your mother could only have given you an X, if you have a Y, it had to have come from your father. In this way, we know that your Y-chromosome (if you have one) is the same as your father's and his father before him and his father before him and so forth and so on all the way back to a man living in Africa sometime around 50,000 years ago. If that's hard to imagine, try this: Imagine you are holding your father's right hand. Now imagine that while holding your left hand, your father is holding his father's right hand. Now just imagine a chain all the way back to an African 50,000 years ago (it's only about 1,000 generations or so).

"How does that help anything," you might be asking. "If you just get a perfect copy, how are you supposed to tell anything about the past?" Well, if we did get "perfect" copies, we wouldn't be able to tell anything about the past. But fortunately for us, every now and then, when the Y-chromosome is making a copy of itself, it makes a mistake. These mistakes are almost all entirely harmless. But once they're there, they get dutifully copied each time and passed to every offspring that inherits that Y-chromosome and each of their offspring and so forth and so on. It is through these "Y-makers" that scientists are able to trace the progress of humans around the globe.

Because scientists like Wells have tested the Y-chromosomes of isolated tribes in Africa, they know that we are all descended from Africans. In a sense, we're all still African, we just haven't been home in about 50,000 years. They have Y-markers that everyone else on the planet has, and none of the other ones that we have. In this way, we know that people living in parts of the world other than Africa must have left before the new mutations in the tribe appeared, or some of the people in the rest of the world would have these mutations too.

So what's our family tree like? Well, the first or our ancestors to leave Africa went pretty much straight for Australia, through the Middle East and then along the coast of India, leaving their Y-markers in isolated regions of India and then in isolated parts of Australia. Australian Aborigines are more related to the isolated African tribes (and in turn our African ancestors) than even some Africans.

After our first migration, we made another. This time we went for Central Asia. From there some of us continued to parts of China and some of us stayed. After a while, the Central Asians went on to populate most of the rest of the world. Europeans, Native Americans (both North and South), Asians and Russians are all descended from Central Asians about 40,000 years ago.

It is truly an amazing story and if you're interested in learning more, you can watch the documentary starring Wells on YouTube: The Journey of Man. It covers all of this and a lot more.

I am interested, however, in what it means for human relations (among other things). Because we're descended from only 10,000 (at the least) individuals, we're all extremely genetically similar. We share about 99.9% of our genes with each other. In fact, we're barely different enough from chimps to have our own genus, we still share about 99.4% percent of our genes with them. We're all really one big African family. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to find someone on the planet who you're not related to.

Concepts of race are merely social constructs. While they are useful to anthropologists, they have no use for the rest of us. We need to stop thinking of each other as different races. We're so similar that such a concept is ridiculous.

While there are obvious differences between us, they are almost entirely arbitrary. Hair color, skin color, facial structure and other such differences are the tiniest fraction of what makes us human. Furthermore, it's not as if any "race" has a feature that any other race couldn't have, they just have it in a higher frequency. It's not as if Europeans are incapable of having dark skin, it's just that most of them don't. While the differences are due to evolution (though not all to natural selection, I suspect a great deal of variation is due to sexual selection given that we are so picky), 50,000 years of evolution is not really enough time to create anything but the most arbitrary of differences.

Try to remember this article next time you see a story on the news about those suffering in Darfur, or the plight of other peoples in far away lands. Don't think, "Who cares about those people, they're all the way on the other side of the world." You should be thinking, "That's terrible! Those people are my cousins! Just 50,000 years ago our fore fathers were in Africa living together! Something should be done to help my family."

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jay Baker's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Newsvine Science, Psych, Soc, Philos, Skeptics
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (46)
The Red Scare

Excellent article. I just want to throw in regarding race that differences in allele frequency within races are greater than between races -- which means there can hypothetically be white people who are more genetically similar to certain black people than they are to other whites. This in addition to the fact that the crude cosmetic differences most people base race on all shade into each other at the edges, and there is not a single feature that any one race has that isn't found in another.

  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 4:38 PM EST
Jay Baker

Thanks, I wanted to include something like this, but the article was getting rather long and I was afraid no one would read all of it. But you're quite right.

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 5:31 PM EST
whatwasleft

RS, nicely put. JB, you rock!

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 9:18 PM EST
Reply
Nick Watts

Concepts of race are merely social constructs. While they are useful to anthropologists, they have no use for the rest of us. We need to stop thinking of each other as different races. We're so similar that such a concept is ridiculous.

Exactly. Thank you for such a well thought-out and written article. I wish everyone had this knowledge and considered it when making rash judgments of others.

Consider yourself clipped. :)

  • 7 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 5:11 PM EST
Jay Baker

Thanks. I appreciate the support.

I wish everyone had this knowledge and considered it when making rash judgments of others.

Me too.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 5:32 PM EST
Reply
RaymontDeleted
Steve Brungard

Our entire species could go extinct yet the universe will thrive. Each of us expires yet the universe thrives. Seems like nothing in this universe gives a flying crap about anything or anyone.

Just you n me is all I see.

  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 7:33 PM EST
Moon In Blue Water

Jay-

slc24a5 -- out of millions of genes mapped in the genome, the number of the single gene that determines skin color.

Great article. Been through the first two installments of the video. Be back to talk more when I've finished, but it'll probably be the weekend.

Be well

  • 2 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 7:34 PM EST
Starlight

I was taught (just a few months ago) that multiple genes determine skin color. Each gene codes for presence or absence or pigment. Where did you here that only one gene determines skin color?

  • 1 vote
#5.1 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 10:09 AM EST
Moon In Blue Water

Don't remember now. It was from one of the founders of Genomic Sciences that did the gene mapping, maybe on a radio talk show (I listen a lot, being in the car for long stetches). I may have got it wrong, but it struck me as interesting enough to memorize the number.

    #5.2 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 11:52 PM EST
    Reply
    Moon In Blue Water

    Steve B: all the more reason to take better care of each other, don't you think?

    • 3 votes
    Reply#6 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 7:36 PM EST
    Jay Baker

    I have to agree with you. I think that's a great reason to take of each other, because the universe certainly isn't going to do it.

    • 2 votes
    #6.1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 8:45 PM EST
    Reply
    spiffie

    All males have a Y-chromosome (it's what makes you male!) and they have just one, which is an exact copy of their father's Y-chromosome.

    Is this the case? Shouldn't the Y-chromosome be subject to the same randomizing processes during meiosis that provide genetic variability?

      Reply#7 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 8:57 PM EST
      Jay Baker

      They would if you had more than one Y-chromosome. However, since your mother can only give X-chromosomes (while the father can give either X or Y), there is no way to have 2 Y-chromosomes (actually you can, but this is extremely rare XYY. These individuals are usually normal males, but are sometimes a little taller, but again this is extremely rare).

      Crossing over (the process I think you're referring to) only happens between two like chromosomes. When the chromosomes line up together with their pairs before splitting in meiosis, they can sometimes exchange genetic information. This only happens with two like chromosomes (though I suppose it could somehow happen with two unlike chromosomes, but that would probably result in an instant abortion). When a female is producing gametes (sex cells), she can only produce ones with X-chromosomes (since to be female, you need 2 X's). When her X-chromosomes line up, they trade some genetic info. But when a male is producing gametes, he produces 2 gametes with X-chromosomes and 2 with Y-chromosomes. During meiosis, when the X and Y-chromosomes line up, they don't share genetic information because they are different chromosomes (if they did and the Y-chromosome got some of the X on it, that gamete would probably be incapable of producing a zygote i.e. instant abortion). In this way, Y-chromosomes carry on unchanged from father to son (except of course for mutations, which allow scientists to do this research in the first place.

      I hope that somehow makes it clear.

      • 4 votes
      #7.1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 9:26 PM EST
      spiffie

      It's too bad the Wiki article on Meiosis is so terrible, and I only have two survey courses in Biology to go off of.

      But yes, crossing over was the process I had in mind. Aren't there still small areas of homology between the X and Y-chromosomes that would allow for some variation?

        #7.2 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 9:46 PM EST
        Jay Baker

        I'm not too sure about that. I wouldn't think so, but biology isn't my major. I'll check some text books though and see what I can find out. But even if that is the case, there are definitely parts that aren't homologous (it goes without saying, since males are different ...). Those parts would have to be copied exactly, as per the process I described above. So even if there could be some sharing between homologous portions of the X and Y-chromosomes, you could still track mutation markers on the non-homologous portions of the Y-chromosome.

          #7.3 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 9:58 PM EST
          praetor605

          Well both chromosomes are DNA, so some random recombination can occur. It has been shown that some genes that were on the Y chromosome have jumped ship to various other places in the human genone, partly because some componets on the X chromosome "attack" the Y chromosome.

          • 1 vote
          #7.4 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 11:15 PM EST
          Jay Baker

          Interesting, I've not heard of the theory of X-chromosomes "attacking" Y-chromosomes, but it sounds pretty cool.

          • 1 vote
          #7.5 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 11:31 PM EST
          praetor605

          It is pretty interesting stuff. Y chromosome genes will even try and divert nutrients from the mother to a child and the X chromosome has to fight off that attack and make sure the mother can survive. This is due to the Y chromosome not caring about the mother, but rather the child with that set of genes while the X is in both the mother and child. A good general introduction into some of this can be found in the various books by Matt Ridley.

          • 2 votes
          #7.6 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 9:34 AM EST
          Jay Baker

          Thanks for the info, I'll have to check out his books.

          • 1 vote
          #7.7 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:04 PM EST
          Reply
          yarDeleted
          Aine MacDermot

          Question: Did the first migrations of human beings happen with homo sapiens, or are we talking of earlier ancestors, such as homo neanderthalensis, homo erectus, etc.?

          And then there is the whole Multiregional hypothesis to contend with.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#9 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 10:31 PM EST
          Jay Baker

          This is about the first migration of Homo sapiens. There were already other Hominids living in different parts of the world when Homo sapiens made their first migration, like Homo Neanderthalensis in Europe.

          As far as the multiregional hypothesis hypothesis goes, this would seem to go against it. I'm familiar with the theory of it, but not the evidence. I'm not sure how strong the evidence for the multiregional hypothesis goes, but the genetic evidence for this theory is quite clear and undeniable.

          There are parts of if which are not supported by archaeological evidence (like early humans in India, on their way to Australia), but that doesn't necessarily mean that Wells' theory is wrong (of course, that also doesn't mean that it's right either). As further evidence comes in, the picture will become clearer. No matter what evidence does come in though, Wells' evidence will still have to be accounted for, that's what tends to make me think he's at least got it pretty close.

          • 2 votes
          #9.1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 11:00 PM EST
          Aine MacDermot

          Here's more food for thought... (emphasis mine):

          "We could not disprove the hypothesis of multiple ancestry," he said. "We don't think [the replacement theory] could be correct. "

          Meanwhile Thorne and other Australian researchers were studying the DNA of Australian skeletons, including Mungo Man, a modern human skeleton that has been dated as far back as 60,000 years.

          What the Australian team found, said Wolpoff, was that "the oldest of the Australian skeletons does not have African mitochondrial DNA."

          Their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that, "'anatomically modern' humans were present in Australia before the complete fixation of mtDNA now found in all living people."

          • 2 votes
          #9.2 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 11:26 PM EST
          Yuriy Bilokonsky

          That is food for thought. I'll have to read it when I have time.

          • 1 vote
          #9.3 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 10:37 AM EST
          Yuriy Bilokonsky

          So we may have evolved in seperate regions like wolves? For instance the American Wolf vs. The African wolf, but then massive migrations may have mixed the genes up? Is that the basic idea?

            #9.4 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 3:35 PM EST
            Aine MacDermot

            The basic idea behind the Multiregional Hypothesis is that diversity resulted from the evolution of distinctive traits (through adaptation and genetic drift) in different geographical regions that became established in early populations of Homo erectus and persisted through the evolution to Homo sapiens, modern people. This persistence is called as regional continuity.

            But yes, the wolves analogy is close, too, although modern dog breeds that have evolved without human intervention would be a closer analogy, I'm thinking.

            • 1 vote
            #9.5 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 3:44 PM EST
            Reply
            ScooterDMan

            Jay — this is one of the best science articles I've ever read on Newsvine. I happen to be trudging through Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale right now, and I read an interesting theory last night regarding migration. Dawkins says the evidence isn't sufficient yet, but apparently recent research demonstrates that we migrated out of Africa into Asia, and then jumped back to Africa before spreading across the globe. I will try to dig out a paragraph and post it here tomorrow if I remember.

            Also, I've been sitting on something I wrote a few weeks ago that is directly related to your article. My hesitation came from having to explain the science behind it (it would become too long), but now I'm just going to post the theory that I've developed and point people here for the scientific foundation that I think backs it up nicely.

            Great job with this. This kind of information needs to be spread with a sense of urgency. It's too important.

            • 3 votes
            Reply#10 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 11:22 PM EST
            Jay Baker

            this is one of the best science articles I've ever read on Newsvine.

            I have to disagree with you here, I'm flattered to be sure, but I would hardly call this the one of the best.

            I've been reading Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee, but my next target is Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. You'll have to let me know what Ancestor's Tale is like, though I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

            As for your article, I can't wait to read it. I was worried about the science as well for my article, particularly in that I'm not an expert on genetics. I published it anyway because a. it isn't my theory so it's not as if I have anything in particular to lose and b. there are plenty of people on the vine with knowledge about this subject who could either back me up or correct me if I'm wrong ... either way we'd all learn something in the process.

            • 4 votes
            #10.1 - Thu Mar 1, 2007 11:57 PM EST
            ScooterDMan

            The Third Chimpanzee is great, as is The Selfish Gene. I am really enjoying The Ancestor's Tale. It's unique in that Dawkins works backwards: He starts with Modern Man and works his way down to a single-celled organism — the greatest common ancestor of all.

            • 2 votes
            #10.2 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:09 AM EST
            Mike from Phoenix

            Great article - thanks for posting this. I too am working my way through The Ancestor's Tale. It is fascinating. I thoroughly enjoyed Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel - so I will have to give the Third Chimpanzee a try.

            • 1 vote
            #10.3 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 10:03 AM EST
            Reply
            Yuriy Bilokonsky

            With all the bajillions of sperm men produce in their lifetimes, I don't imagine that it is very hard for mutations in the y-chromosome to take place.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#11 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 10:39 AM EST
            onika

            and here we go again with the world needed proof that we should be nice to eachother....

            • 2 votes
            Reply#12 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 11:36 AM EST
            Jay Baker

            and here we go again with the world needed proof that we should be nice to eachother....

            I wish we didn't need proof. I was just hoping to show how science could be useful in areas where it's not usually thought to be. Also, it seemed like a great story, despite all of our shortcomings, we were still able to conquer the planet with stone age technology. But yeah, I don't think we need proof, but proof can't hurt.

            • 2 votes
            #12.1 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:12 PM EST
            onika

            it sure makes you wonder if the whole world is faking it due to an article...

              #12.2 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:13 PM EST
              Jay Baker

              I don't think so. Besides, there is some evidence that we have evolved a sense of altruism. Some of us may not have much of a choice when it comes to being nice to others. (I realize that that's not how neurology works, just because you are born with the pathways for altruism, if you never use them they will go away).

              • 2 votes
              #12.3 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 12:17 PM EST
              onika

              Besides, there is some evidence that we have evolved a sense of altruism.

              the root of his argument resides on the basis that humans are naturally altruistic which is not true and cannot be proven.... the real reason we should want to prevent their deaths is so we can have hegemonic control over their region through the goods and services they buy from us or that others buy from us to give to them

                #12.4 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 1:21 PM EST
                Reply
                Belarius

                Actually, there's a plausible argument to be made that as early as 4,000 years ago, every human being alive was either in all of modern humanity's family tree or none of it. The logic runs something like this: every person alive has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so forth. Go back 20 generations and you have over 1 million ancestors. Go back 30 generations and you have over a trillion ancestors. The problem is that, having gone back that far, there simply aren't a trillion people to be found. That's because everyone's family trees overlap so heavily. With the advent of modern travel, all but the most isolated communities have become entwined in this process.

                It's surprisingly easy to trace common ancestors between seemingly distinct families. We see stories about this sort of things from time to time, but most people haven't considered the large-scale implications. Go back thousands of years, and every person you meet (who has kids) is likely to be in your family tree. If they're not in your family tree, odds are they're in no family trees today.

                So. Every KKK member has African ancestors. Every border vigilante has Hispanic/Spanish ancestors. Every soldier in Iraq has Arab ancestors. Not only is the idea that "race" exists as some clear delineation of mankind, but those delineations break down within the span of recorded history. Compound that over tens of thousands of years, and the idea breaks down entirely.

                • 5 votes
                Reply#13 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 2:40 PM EST
                Jay Baker

                Excellent comment, this is exactly the type of conversation I was hoping to spark. Thanks for including the links too, I'll check them out.

                  #13.1 - Fri Mar 2, 2007 4:43 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Ben Josephs

                  Terrific article.

                    Reply#14 - Sat Mar 3, 2007 9:46 PM EST
                    Heinz

                    Belarius, thank you for that comment. You hit the nail on the head.

                      Reply#15 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:22 AM EDT
                      Leave a Comment:
                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                      FUN STUFF:
                      • Leaderboard |
                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                      • Top of the Vine |
                      • Newsvine Live |
                      • Newsvine Archives |
                      • The Greenhouse |
                      COMPANY STUFF:
                      • Code of Honor |
                      • Company Info |
                      • Contact Us |
                      • Jobs |
                      • User Agreement |
                      • Privacy Policy |
                      • About our ads
                      LEGAL STUFF:
                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com