ScienceAnd Blog

Ancestry is about phylogeny : the lineage of ancestor-descendant that every human being manifests. It’s existence is not in question but the validity of the methodologies and the societal implications of this rapidly growing area of personal interest is beginning to be questioned. Today the American Journal of Human Genetics [86(5):661-673] published their report on ancestry genetics testing in which they address these questions. Firstly, ancestral genetic testing has little to do with phylogenic lineages in the sense understood by the palaeontologist i.e. spans > 5 million years. However, genetic testing is relevant to defining the ethno-cultural gamodeme an individual came from; and, how one’s ancestors got to the geographical location a person was born in. Secondly, discussion of genetic ancestry is beginning to move into the tricky area of ethics: this is where a vicious battle could take place, as currently the war between individual and group rights begins to focus at a more general level.

Paternal [Y-chromosome] and maternal [mtDNA] genetic testing can provide phylogenic information about the ancient gamodeme an individual’s ancestors came from. When the information is placed in a relative, as opposed to an absolute, time-scale this is the most general, valid, conclusion that can be made from genetic testing. More specific conclusions are possible where comparisons can be made to a database of many individuals in which the location of origin is known: this was the method used by the pioneers in the field such as Cavalli-Sforza et al.,1994,2001; Wells,2004,2007; and, Sykes,2002, amongst others. Rough absolute time scales are available for this kind of information.

When genetic tests are used for genealogical analysis the results, generally, are quite restricted and can directly link members of only two lineages: those of the fathers paternal grandfather etc., and the mothers maternal grandmother. The methods used can allow reliable conclusions to be derived about ancestry and are useful in determining parentage, and confirming oral and written genealogical hypotheses. The organisation www.ancestry.com specialises in this kind of analysis.

Between the reliable extremes of ancestral gamodeme and immediate genealogical determination is the gray area where conclusions are tentative and often based upon unsubstantiated hypotheses and conjecture; or, use non-scientific methodologies for data analyses. This gray area is the exciting area because it is open to scientific experimentation: Bryan Sykes’ book “Blood of the Isles” [2006] / “Saxons, Vikings and Celts” [2007] delves into this gray area and is an excellent example of what the gray area is and what can be done within it.

The second area, of ethics, is non-scientific and shows the beginning of intrusion of corporate world into individual choice and freedom with the focus on extracting money for interpreting services. It is a characteristic of American society that professional certification, provided by a non-educational organisation, is often required by law to perform a service. These organisations have often come about by a few individuals who either wish to build a personal empire, or, create a barrier of the kind “we are the knowledgeable and you are not”. Personally, I have always fought against such restrictive techniques because experience has shown that few bodies should have regulatory authority when it comes to knowledge. Most professional bodies do not need, themselves, to provide additional professional training: even though they may require it for continued membership e.g. professional accountants. Additional professional training is the job of independent educational institutions such as trade schools and universities; and, of training programs run under their auspices. Belonging to a body such as the Royal College of Surgeons, or the American Academy of Sciences, or Engineering is recognition of a certain quality of experience and is an obvious guideline when hiring someone for a specific purpose: however, it is up to the individual asking for service to determine whether or not to use a particular person or organisation.  As anyone who has been an expert witness will know, the American legal system does not tolerate incompetent experts: our lawyers are too cunning for that. For government to regulate so that only a member of a professional organisation can legally collect, provide or interpret information is, in my opinion, grounds for insurrection, rebellion and revolution. I have said before: “requiring a bit of paper from a private, non-independent organisation that espouses group superiority is detrimental to our educational system and individual freedom.” We must be vigilant and oppose the development of a system created by lobbying and political ineptitude, that restricts knowledge propagation and encourages financial greed and/or arrogance.

Comment: Professor George F. Hart, 10^th, May, 2010.

I believe I have a record that can prove I am not a racist but I do take issue with many geneticists who claim that race is irrelevant because we all differ from one another by a minute amount of our DNA. For example, Richard Hayer of the Center for Genetics and Society said “modern science reveals that genetic differences are trivial and that ‘race’ is an almost meaningless descriptor”. Whereas he was correct in his first statement he is decidedly wrong in his second. The notion of separate interbreeding populations forming distinct ethno-cultural gamodemes is a very valid concept for understanding Protosociety. As a social concept to understand Protosociety, the spatial distribution of human variation is clearly significant, despite the ideologues of the west coast of the USA who rightly see genetic variation within the global population as continuous – missing the point that Cultures are separated on their differences not their similarities and that physically each geographic area did show a unison of characteristics that led earlier anthropologists to define human variants. These variants were not significant, and probably did not exist during Archaeosociety and are breaking down since Eusociety commenced. However, during Protosociety they developed and were important concepts influencing people and even today accepting such differences can have decidedly important benefits to health and education and the general well-being of all of humankind.

The problem seems to me to be related to the modern education of bio-scientists.: one flaw is that they do not seem to understand TAXONOMY. The older generation had a strong background in both taxonomic theory and practice, and understood that taxa are separated primarily by differences not similarities. A useful taxonomy of humankind does use a variant-based hierarchy; and the resultant classification is based upon a unison of measurable and visible physical traits. To deny this is bowing down to political correctness: to use it as the basis for racism is both unethical and evil. It is for this reason that I continue to use the geographically based, physical gamodeme classification. for humankind. As I have said elsewhere:

“The combination of various geographical effects was evident in the isolation of the cultural gamodemes that formed the traditional interbreeding populations of Homo sapiens by the end of the Pleistocene Epoch [11,500 years ago]. By this time the archaeosociety of the hunter-gatherer was being replaced regionally by protosociety as agriculture developed”, Hart, 2008, p73.

THE CLASSICAL CLASSIFICATION OF HOMO SAPIENS

Homo sapiens var africanensis and the African Cultures.

Homo sapiens var caucasensis and the European Cultures.

Homo sapiens var mongolensis and the Asian Cultures.

Homo sapiens var australensis and the Australasian Cultures.

Homo sapiens var Khoisanensis and the Southern African Cultures.

An interesting observation by Geoffrey Miller in the Economist: “The World In 2010” is that “The looming crisis in human genetics” is precisely the problem that genetic studies are showing how we are all a product of out physical gamodeme.  I believe this is something we should embrace, for the good of humanity, not shun as incorrect.