Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DNA Suggests Three Basic Human Groups

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the primary-people dept.

Biotech 459

Death Metal writes "All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made — the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens."

cancel ×

459 comments

You mean the three sons of Noah? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460413)

Three Sons of Noah [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (4, Funny)

TheSovereign (1317091) | about 5 years ago | (#28460561)

great...and i was so sold on my atheism and not i gotta start following the rules.

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#28460765)

Well, I suppose the generations of inbreeding that would be required to make that work would explain why humans are so fucked up.

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461061)

Supports Heimdall as the God Rig much better!

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461095)

Three Sons of Noah [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be the ancestors of us all.

Ya, blah blah.

I saw a recent study of DNA from around the planet, and tied in with some paleontology. Remember that whole "homo sapien came from the Fertile Crescent, long after the other sapien varients were gone" theory? Turns out (like most logically people suspected) that it's pretty much B.S.
We've made some recent finds that show that homo sapien did indeed live at the same time several other Homo variants were alive. The immediate response by the "fertile crescent" proponents simply said "well, then the Homo sapiens must have just killed the ones they ran into. all of them, completely wiped out.". To which the logical people said "bullshit".

Welp, turns out after doing some even more recent DNA testing, that Homo Sapiens probably didn't wipe out the other Homo variants at all- they had sex with them & absorbed them over time into their own genetic pool. A good bit of the regionalized diversity amongst homo sapiens is due originally to which other Homo variants were in that general region.

So no, we didn't come from "the fertile crescent". Homo sapiens are a result of several different Homo variants breeding with other variants, so we don't HAVE a common point of origin for our species. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that we just suddenly showed up and sprouted an entire diverse genetic pool from two people, or three, etc.

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (5, Funny)

youngone (975102) | about 5 years ago | (#28461197)

Come on guys, this is totally wrong. There are really 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461253)

So I clicked on the link "Three Sons of Noah" and saw the picture labeled "Shem, Ham and Japheth. Illustration by James Tissot 1904" and it occurred to me that we've come full circle and moved on ... That's CCR (Creedence Clearwater Revival). Now you can tell your friends that the long walk / separation from Africa had a distinct and natural purpose: It lead to American Rock. Now you've really heard it through the grape vine

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461329)

I clicked on the Wikipedia link to "Three Sons of Noah" and scrolled down to see the picture labeled "Shem, Ham and Japheth. Illustration by James Tissot 1904" and then it occurred to me that the long walk /separation from Africa has come full circle and moved on. That's a picture of three of the Credence Clearwater Revival band members. Now you can tell your edu-ma-cated friends that you know the _purpose_ behind this natural phenomenon ... it was meant to lead to American Rock! Now you REALLY heard it through the grape vine (insert rim shot here)

Re:You mean the three sons of Noah? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461431)

Please peddle your bronze age myths elsewhere... thanks.

Shem, Ham, and Japheth (3, Informative)

kbrasee (1379057) | about 5 years ago | (#28460415)

Now tell me something I DON'T know.

I don't think so (5, Funny)

brunes69 (86786) | about 5 years ago | (#28460591)

Unless one of Noah's sons was black, one was white, and one was east-asian, this is pretty much not possible.

Re:I don't think so (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 years ago | (#28460737)

There's the problem of one man starting a whole new population would lead to inbreeding for a while, so that's the bigger problem. But if that happened and maybe Noah and his wife/wives didn't have any negative recessive genes, or the inbred populations didn't die off, or if you fiat it away (as theists often do), then it's totally possible for three initially identical subpopulations to diverge over many generations.

If Noah's sons all looked alike and went to different corners of the earth, it's still possible for black populations, white populations, and east asian populations to arise.

There's still that bigger inbreeding problem. And the total lack of real evidence. And maybe not enough time for that to actually happen with a strict interpretation of the torah/old testament/whatever.

It is interesting whenever science finds something and you can find something in holy literature that can seem to be a metaphor for it. Carl Sagan pointed out how the evolution of the human brain, the neocortex specifically, paralells the story of the apple of knowledge in interesting ways. Increased neocortical mass may be what really seperates us from animals, gives us shame and self consciousness, and interestingly may cause labor pains for women. Interesting, but it would be a mistake of course to interpret that as evidence for anything.

Obviously, no one should take that as proof of anything, as you can interpret anything you want. Still, it is interesting.

Re:I don't think so (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461321)

Have you actually read The Bible?

No incest, or more politely, inbreeding" had to occur at all.

Read the book Man, see for your self, the talk of "the other people" who existed at the same time.

RTFBible, because it's clear you're ignorant on some important "facts".

Re:I don't think so (1, Insightful)

arminw (717974) | about 5 years ago | (#28461337)

...There's still that bigger inbreeding problem....

You are making an assumption here, namely that the genetic pool of humanity was then the way it looks today. It is interesting that there are exactly 3 people groups and not four or five for some of that number. It is not at all impossible that all people on Earth today descended from the three sons of Noah. This is a very simple theory and as far as theories go, the simpler ones are more likely correct. Of course, this theory has unthinkable implications for those who believe that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of myths and falsehoods. People who do not wish to believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible will go to great lengths to come up with other, usually more complicated explanations for this data.

Re:I don't think so (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 5 years ago | (#28460813)

That sounds like the beginning to a joke...

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460911)

Thanks, Sherlock!

Re:I don't think so (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#28460875)

They were, but he kept the 2 undesirables below deck.

Re:I don't think so (2, Funny)

drawfour (791912) | about 5 years ago | (#28460919)

What about Noah's sons' wives?

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461065)

Unless one of Noah's sons was black, one was white, and one was east-asian, this is pretty much not possible.

What, you have something against adoption?

Re:I don't think so (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#28461135)

Unless one of Noah's sons was black, one was white, and one was east-asian, this is pretty much not possible.

So you're saying we probably all come from the Village People?

Re:I don't think so (5, Funny)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 5 years ago | (#28461217)

Well a little further up I did see someone saying we came from a lot of different homos having sex.

Re:Shem, Ham, and Japheth (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 5 years ago | (#28460987)

Shem was a faker.
Ham was big and dumb.
Japheth was a woodcarver who never got married and talked to puppets.
Got into his head that one of them came to life and ran away from home, so he went roaming the world after it. Nearly drowned doing that.
Claimed that he survived being eaten by a whale. Changed his name to Jonah after that.

Re:Shem, Ham, and Japheth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461313)

Not really.

The study attributes the origin of European peoples and west Asian / Middle Eastern peoples to the same ancestor.

According to the Bible, Shem would be the ancestor of Semitic peoples while Japheth is supposed to be the ancestor of European peoples.

cue the... (-1, Redundant)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 5 years ago | (#28460429)

...pants shitting.

Three basic willy groups (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460437)

Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.

Willy on wheels!

Really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460439)

Don't tell me that scientists are actually confirming what Christian theologians have been saying all along about Noah's 3 sons being the division of ethnicity's... dates notwithstanding?

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 5 years ago | (#28460733)

Only if you read the book of Genesis like a Catholic does- as an allegorical story explaining many things about the natural world and how to live in it.

Otherwise, no. And in fact, for the racists out there, this proves once and for all that Africans, of the three groups, are the most evolved, with the most diversity. The other two groups are subgroup descendants of the Africans.

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about 5 years ago | (#28460941)

Not really, humans as a species are just about as homogeneous as you're going to get, which makes it difficult to make those sorts of claims stick. Just as much of suggesting that Africans are inferior as superior. Additionally, there's been some research to suggest that African populations have more genetic diversity than other groups, which I wouldn't think would contribute to the suggestion that they're any more or less well adapted than other groups.

But then again, if it drives white supremecists nuts, why bother arguing. ;)

Re:Really? (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | about 5 years ago | (#28461041)

Otherwise, no. And in fact, for the racists out there, this proves once and for all that Africans, of the three groups, are the most evolved, with the most diversity. The other two groups are subgroup descendants of the Africans.

Then why are they still so fucked up?

</troll>

In all seriousness the genetic divergence is negligible, most of the problems in the black communities in the us stem from either latent racism or from serious endemic social problems (personally I believe it has more too do with the latter at this point)

Re:Really? (0)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about 5 years ago | (#28461413)

You need to take a class on human intelligence. There are a lot of things about different races held out of university classes because they're "politically incorrect".

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461285)

This is not how evolution works, bro'. The population with the most genetic diversity is the less evolved(in the sense that it retains more characteristics from the original population).
Evolution works in the extremes where a few founding individuals exposed to higher than average pressure evolve multiple adaptations to the new conditions.

Will this be the future of racism? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460469)

I've come to believe that human's are simply programmed to line themselves up in groups, to fight imagined or real enemies in other groups. We're raised on it, jocks vs nerds becomes blacks vs whites vs christians vs atheists vs global warming followers vs global warming deniers vs pro-life vs pro-choice vs republicans vs democrats vs whatever.

So who else believes this will be the next big advance in 'scientifically supported' bigotry? After all, we now have proof we're better/smarter/more virtuous/taller than *them*.

Re:Will this be the future of racism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460523)

In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes. -- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Will this be the future of racism? (2, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 5 years ago | (#28460931)

In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes. -- Benjamin Franklin

The good news is, they're working on death.

The bad news is, they had to give up working on taxes to pay for it.

Re:Will this be the future of racism? (3, Insightful)

jack2000 (1178961) | about 5 years ago | (#28460569)

What strikes me as odd isn't the science or fact that people are different, what strikes me as odd is people seem to be somehow afraid of this and would fret about it endlessly...

Re:Will this be the future of racism? (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 years ago | (#28460893)

I don't think anyone's fretting about it at all. AC is just wondering out loud.

Anyway, the worst that will happen is some group will protest the finding. The only people who are going to take the findings to conclusions about racial superiority are people who are using it to validate their pre-existing racism. Knuckle-dragging racists aren't made by facts, they're made by ignorance.

Re:Will this be the future of racism? (4, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 5 years ago | (#28460671)

blacks vs whites vs christians vs atheists vs global warming followers vs global warming deniers vs pro-life vs pro-choice vs republicans vs democrats vs whatever

One ring, one winner. Tonight on ESPN.

Re:Will this be the future of racism? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461429)

One ring... to rule them all?

3 types of people. (3, Funny)

the-bobcat (1360969) | about 5 years ago | (#28460485)

People who do things, people who don't do a thing, and people who wait for things to be done by others.

Re:3 types of people. (3, Funny)

exley (221867) | about 5 years ago | (#28460635)

Close... People who make things happen, people who let things happen, and people who say "What the hell just happened?"

Re:3 types of people. (1)

multisync (218450) | about 5 years ago | (#28461159)

People who do things

Sheep

people who don't do a thing

Pigs

and people who wait for things to be done by others

Dogs

Yes, I think I've heard this somewhere before.

These are the real 3 groups (4, Insightful)

Haoie (1277294) | about 5 years ago | (#28460487)

1. Those who make things happen
2. Those who watch things happen
3. Those who wonder what happened

Re:These are the real 3 groups (4, Funny)

greenguy (162630) | about 5 years ago | (#28460705)

I thought the three groups were those who are good at math, and those who aren't.

Re:These are the real 3 groups (1, Offtopic)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about 5 years ago | (#28460895)

I thought the three groups were those who are good at math, and those who aren't.

1. Dicks
2. Pussies
3. Assholes

It's 2 groups: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461187)

Those who divide everything into two categories and everyone else.

Re:These are the real 3 groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461327)

I thought the three groups were those who are good at math, and those who aren't.

I'm pretty sure the three groups are people who are sick of that joke, people who still think it's funny, and people who still haven't heard it.

Re:These are the real 3 groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460755)

I thought it was:

1. Those who can be bothered to finish what they started.
2. Those

Re:These are the real 3 groups (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 5 years ago | (#28461083)

I thought the 3 groups of people were: those who can count and those who can't count.

Great... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460491)

More ways to be prejudiced against people.

"My genetic group is better than yours!"

Article asserts three things; none yet proven true (5, Interesting)

Raindance (680694) | about 5 years ago | (#28460505)

As far as I can tell, this story attempts to make three points:

1. Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.

2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.

3. Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups' genomes differ.

This pretty much follows the contours of the current orthodoxy in population genetics (with certain distinct exceptions).

So are these three points meaningfully true?

1. Human genomes tend to cluster into three groups: african, eurasian, and east asian.

Generally speaking they /do/ cluster this way. Of course, you can make room for as few or as many clusters as you want-- if it was two, it'd be african/everything else. Three, african/eurasian/east asian. Four, perhaps african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american. Five, perhaps west african/east african/eurasian/east asian/naitive american. From what I've read, the most elegant statistical clusters arise when you allow for four groups (splitting native americans off from east asians). Of course, this clustering gets more complex when you consider admixture populations (e.g., the majority of south america and mexico).

2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.

It's hard to say this is true or false yet, because we simply don't know how functionally significant these differences are. Two genomes may look very similar, yet be very different in many very significant ways.

3. Neutral drift is the major story in how ethic groups' genomes differ.

This is code for a very contentious question-- are ethnic differences merely skin-deep? The fact is, we don't know yet. There's a lot of research that points to yes; there's a lot of research that points to no. The answer to this is undoubtedly going to turn out to be: yes and no, depending on the context and the threshold you look at.

also: Africa has greater genetic diversity (4, Interesting)

schwaang (667808) | about 5 years ago | (#28460701)

I'd add a fourth point that to me is even more interesting (and apparently comes from the data):

As a result [*] African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

* [The population split away from Africa 70K years ago, and then that sub-population splitting again 40K years ago into Eurasian and East Asian groups. The African source population is 130K years old.]

Thanks for the insights! (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 5 years ago | (#28460753)

Valuable analysis. Mod to +10.

Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t (1)

panthroman (1415081) | about 5 years ago | (#28461047)

2. We expected that the genomes of different ethnic groups would be very different. They aren't.

Seriously, how surprised can we be? We share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Hell, we share tons of DNA with single-celled algae [sciencedaily.com] .

Think of the genome as a computer program, and genes are little subs that do helpful things. Lots of subs are sitting unused, abandoned, all over our genomes. Lots are called at different times by barely-related parts of our 'human program'. Very different programs can share lots of lines, lots of entire subs. Very different creatures can share lots of DNA, lots of entire genes.

(Statements like "siblings share half their genes" are super misleading. Yes, you get half from Mom and half from Dad, but 99.9% of those genes are the same anyway.)

Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t (1)

shadowofwind (1209890) | about 5 years ago | (#28461211)

How close genetically are Indians (from India) to Chinese?

Re:Article asserts three things; none yet proven t (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | about 5 years ago | (#28461395)

You forgot one point:
Sources, data, and statistics are irrelevant. Honestly, this story sounds like a bunch of tripe without an ounce of credibility for support.

3 types (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460509)

1. Slant
2. Black
3. Round Eye

confirmation of previous grouping (4, Interesting)

JeffSh (71237) | about 5 years ago | (#28460533)

I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise. Researches along time ago classified people into 3 groups and this is merely genetic confirmation of the original findings. They classified people in 3 groups a long time ago, I suppose this is DNA confirmation of the initial categories: Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid.

non-PC names these days I suppose, but that's what they were called.

Re:confirmation of previous grouping (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460609)

Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid.

Or, less politely: nigras, azns, and honkies.

Re:confirmation of previous grouping (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 5 years ago | (#28460851)

I find that offensive. I am and will always be a cracka!

A "well duh" moment.. (3, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#28460859)

Ya i agree, Captain Obvious strikes again, and got tons of funding to do it.

What is next, 1/2 a million to find out men don't like condoms? oh wait, that was last week..

Re:confirmation of previous grouping (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 5 years ago | (#28460951)

That's not really the same thing, that was classifying human remains via the rough shape of the skull. This is a bit more personal than that is. You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.

Re:confirmation of previous grouping (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 years ago | (#28460955)

I take a general offense to the nature of this article, presenting this as though it is some sort of surprise.

Then you misinterpreted it. The suprise is at the degree of genomic similarity within the three groups. The groupings you mentioned seem to have been validated, but they weren't based on genome studies. Using those old "studies" you couldn't have said anything about the genetic similarity of two ethnicities within the, er, clades? Maybe you could have/did assume, but that would have been without any evidence.

The suprise is not that there are 3 groups, the suprise is that there are 3 genetic groups.

(Terminology is a bit off because, well, I'm not in this field)

Re:confirmation of previous grouping (2, Informative)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | about 5 years ago | (#28460997)

Did you miss the paragraph on the first page of the article where they explicitly said that this wasn't a new result and then proceeded to say what was the novel finding (subtle as it was)?

What's PC now? (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#28460545)

So if there's only three distinct ethnic groups, who's the minority now? It's very important for political correctness. Wait... Minorities are an invention of mass-delusions by the public...

Re:What's PC now? (3, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 5 years ago | (#28460789)

there's more Chinese people than any other ethic group. Chances are because you are posting on Slashdot with perfect English YOU are a minority.

Re:What's PC now? (2, Insightful)

drsmack1 (698392) | about 5 years ago | (#28461149)

In my experience, if he writes in perfect English then he is either over 40 or from outside the country. So, that still leaves the chance that he is Chinese.

Re:What's PC now? (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | about 5 years ago | (#28461357)

Right, there is no such thing as discrimination in current society.

Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (2, Interesting)

Old Wolf (56093) | about 5 years ago | (#28460577)

Hasn't this been known for a long time? TFA described the three groups but didn't use these terms -- rampant political correctness, sigh..

Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (1)

Old Wolf (56093) | about 5 years ago | (#28461099)

It's flamebait to speak out against political correctness now?

Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (3, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | about 5 years ago | (#28461231)

Well, one of the moderations was "redundant", which is fair since someone mentioned the same thing again. But yeah, I think there's some general ignorance surrounding those terms - people think "Negroid" is a slur (just like that politician a few years ago who got lambasted for saying "niggardly"). From wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]

In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans â" Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology. Such classifications remain in use today in the fields of anthropology and forensics to help identify the ethnicity, lineage and origin of human remains.

Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461261)

Here we go with the straw man of political correctness, sigh...

Nobody calls cars horseless carriages anymore, must be because of political correctness. Damned easily-offended horses...

Re:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461283)

Crackers, Niggers, and Chinks.

Fantasies (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460581)

Evolution. Pure fantasy pretending to be science.

Re:Fantasies (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 5 years ago | (#28460727)

I think the collective hallucinations of geology, biology and paleontology that support evolution are especially fascinating. It's amazing how so many scientists imagined into being so much demonstrable evidence for their delusion.

Re:Fantasies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461035)

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Was the bottom quote of slashdot as of right now.

Re:Fantasies (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28461101)

Quoted on Slashdot... It must be true!

Pointless article (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460593)

It sounds like it was written 50 years ago. At the very least I find it hard to believe the Australian Aborigines aren't a distinct group since they separated from the rest of the race before Europeans left Africa. The whole thing is an over simplification of a very complex family tree.

Re:Pointless article (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460715)

Aborigines are not human. They are a lesser primate--more human than chimps but not fully human in the strictest scientific sense.

Re:Pointless article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460763)

Yeah, it's like when you're told there's Three Stooges but then you find out about Shemp. And Joe. And...

Three groups we've all seen (2, Funny)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 5 years ago | (#28460613)

The Science nerds, P.E. jocks, and the Marketing schmoozers

South Park did it... (2, Funny)

d_p (63654) | about 5 years ago | (#28460689)

Dicks, pussies and assholes

Correction... Team America (1)

d_p (63654) | about 5 years ago | (#28460711)

..you get it

Re:South Park did it... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 5 years ago | (#28460781)

I'm not sure 'Team America: World Police' technically qualifies as South Park. Having written a paper on South Park and Team America as compared to Gulliver's Travels and and the Beggar's Opera in my Jr. year of undergrad (damn was that like 4 years ago already?) for my Restoration and 18th Century Literature class (my contention being the so-called "golden age of satire" is a misnomer), I'm somewhat sensitive to the subtle differences in the projects.

(and frankly, that was probably the nerdiest under grad English paper that wasn't about Jules Verne ever written).

Re:South Park did it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461361)

The Americans must belong to the "Dicks" since we're spending so much time screwing the other two.

But how long will it last? (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 5 years ago | (#28460713)

Advances in communication and transportation in the last century mean that members of these three groups are migrating away from the areas their ancestors lived in. I live in Australia but my ancestors came from England. My wife was born in Malaysia but her ancestors came from China. Our son is a mix of two of the groups defined by TFA.

Yesterday he brought home a school project to work on. Each child in the class has to fill in a page in a scrap book about themselves. His classmates come from England, Spain, China, Egypt, Australia (one Aboriginal boy) and Turkey. The next generation here will be even more mixed than the last.

Re:But how long will it last? (1, Interesting)

zarzu (1581721) | about 5 years ago | (#28460833)

i hope not long, blends of different races are generally some of the most beautiful people, i am very much looking forward to the widespread crossbreeding that is our future.

i thought (2, Funny)

weirdo557 (959623) | about 5 years ago | (#28460735)

there were 10 types of people,

Re:i thought (3, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#28461017)

There are. Those that understand trinary, those who don't, and those that mistake it for binary.

Re:i thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461239)

Wow. Whoever modded that guy down deserves a major whoosh.

I'l clarify the joke for you.

"There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't".

Apparently the mods need to touch up on their binary math. I won't spoil it for you with the punch line, but you can find it on Google if you have too much trouble figuring it out.

This changes everything (1, Funny)

DrGradus (1515733) | about 5 years ago | (#28460745)

I always thought there were only 10 types of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I new it... (1)

target562 (623649) | about 5 years ago | (#28460749)

Human, Cylon, & Human-Cylon Hybrid.

Re:I new it... (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 5 years ago | (#28461127)

Human, Android, chiggers?

I've always known this. (1)

reboot246 (623534) | about 5 years ago | (#28460883)

Three groups of people:

People who know me.
People who want to know me.
People I don't want to know, no matter which of the
above two groups they're in. :)

Noah _ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28460925)

Hmm, let's see here, Noah's sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth...

I'm just saying! :P

As for this comment: "Unless one of Noah's sons was black, one was white, and one was east-asian, this is pretty much not possible." This is exactly the how it would have been. Noah would've contained all the genetic diversity that we see now in himself and his sons. Cultural selection would've rendered the racial groups we see now, in the same way that the Chinese bred curly hair out of their population.

Hell, go back before the Great Flood and you might even find some even more interesting combinations. How about dark-skinned people with naturally blue eyes, and blond kinky hair. Or red-heads with asian-like tucked eyelids. There's no reason why the groups we see and associate with particular genetic features need have remained that way into the distant past. Genetics would indicate just the opposite.

As for the question of inbreeding, if the genetics of the gene pool were far less damaged in that era (having recently been created, after all), in-breeding is a non-issue.

Binary (1)

billius (1188143) | about 5 years ago | (#28460949)

Awww crap, there goes my joke about people knowing binary...

Racist nonsense (2, Funny)

Baldrson (78598) | about 5 years ago | (#28460979)

This can't be true because the president is a mulatto.

Idiots, Assholes, and Me. (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | about 5 years ago | (#28461097)

Those are the three groups.

Actually, I thought the article would say that there were Christians in one group, Muslims in the second, Hindus and everyone else in the third. Of course Jews don't count as people.

Har har har har.

Remember, the B-Ark held: (1)

Mononoke (88668) | about 5 years ago | (#28461257)

1. Middle managers
2. Hairdressers
3. Telephone sanitizers

not exactly a revelation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28461341)

This research typically stops at the point of agriculture and relatively fixed settlement of people, so modern population mixtures are not considered.

This is hardly recent news though, phylogenetic trees illustrating the clustering of haplogroups have been published for a decade or more (much more if you include the blood group analysis of Cavalli-Sforza et al)

Also remember that this research typically tracks Y haplotypes, so this represents direct male lineage only- this is highly correlated to overall populations but not 100%

It's Obvious. (3, Interesting)

TrevorB (57780) | about 5 years ago | (#28461385)

Humans, Cylons, and descendants of the aboriginals of this planet.

Duh!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...