Re: Clarification on relationship between Morphology and genes
Karen (karen@uab.edu)
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:02:02 GMT
James Borrett <jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>:MacNetscape User at Texas A&M wrote:
>:>
>:> Is this contradictory from the 6% of our genetic constitution, that
>:> I have read elsewhere (Discover Magazine for instance), been
>:> attributable to "race"? or I am misinterpreting Boyce?
>:I don't know that actual figures but the genetic difference within, say,
>:the caucasian population is greater than the average genetic difference
>:between caucasians and negroes, so the figures can get very complicated.
>:The only genetic difference that is really involved in race is the
>:miniscule amount that determines race itself by affecting skin and hair
>:colour. The rest of human genetic variation doesn't correlate with race
>:at all.
James is right, there is greater genetic diversity within populations
that between. What we conceive of as race is basically a minor
phenotype that controls colour of skin. Biologically speaking, race is
a misconcept.
A lot of genetic traits are never seen, such as blood types, etc. If
they were seen by human eyes, we would probably call ourselves races
of A's, B's, AB's and O's negatives and positives, etc. These
genetic variations are more significant than the phenotypical trait of
skin colour but they aren't visible. Race is just a phenotype...a
visible genetic trait.
6% diversity between human populations is incorrect.
Karen
|