Question for Philip D.

[Deowll]

I came across the claim that humans normally married cousins
or at least people who shared a lot of genes with them.

The author claimed that in the past this would have been extra
smart because some features that should be linked aren't. The
example given was tooth and jaw size. If you got big teeth and
a small jaw because non related groups with different norms
dental problems were going to occur and without modern
dintists death could result.

1. Is this true on just myth?

2. If it isn't BS you may have some evidence that HSN and HS
couldn't produce healthy hybrids. HSN teeth were at least
as robust as those of earlier groups while HSS teeth and
jaws were reduced though not as reduced as in moderns. If
the rules governing genetics say that mixing those genes
meant major dental problems you have evidence which beats
the snot out of a reasonible assumption.

--
I change my opinions to fit the facts.

[Philip Dei]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:33:37 -0500, "deowll"
<deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>I came across the claim that humans normally married cousins
>or at least people who shared a lot of genes with them.
>
>The author claimed that in the past this would have been
>extra smart because some features that should be linked
>aren't. The example given was tooth and jaw size. If you got
>big teeth and a small jaw because non related groups with
>different norms dental problems were going to occur and
>without modern dintists death could result.
>
>1. Is this true on just myth?

Possibly true for HLA, For example the sardinians had
DQB10502/DQA10102 in great abundance whereas the Italians had
DQB10501/DQA10101. As italians and sardinians are mixing
Myastenia Gravis is on the rise, and the implicated allele in
Italy is 0502, 0102 is 100% linked to 0502, the rest of the
story you will have to figure out.

We see a number of examples of where populations recently
mixed there is a higher incidence of certain alleles being
associated with disease.

>2. If it isn't BS you may have some evidence that HSN and HS
> couldn't produce healthy hybrids. HSN teeth were at least
> as robust as those of earlier groups while HSS teeth and
> jaws were reduced though not as reduced as in moderns. If
> the rules governing genetics say that mixing those genes
> meant major dental problems you have evidence which beats
> the snot out of a reasonible assumption.

Don't need it.

[Deowll]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:ihgugvcng6dgtpm7v8q5v8rrmpm1uh92ur@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:33:37 -0500, "deowll"
> <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I came across the claim that humans normally married
> >cousins or at least people who shared a lot of genes
> >with them.
> >
> >The author claimed that in the past this would have been
> >extra smart
because
> >some features that should be linked aren't. The example
> >given was tooth
and
> >jaw size. If you got big teeth and a small jaw because non
> >related groups with different norms dental problems were
> >going to occur and without
modern
> >dintists death could result.
> >
> >1. Is this true on just myth?
>
> Possibly true for HLA, For example the sardinians had
> DQB10502/DQA10102 in great abundance whereas the Italians
> had DQB10501/DQA10101. As italians and sardinians are mixing
> Myastenia Gravis is on the rise, and the implicated allele
> in Italy is 0502, 0102 is 100% linked to 0502, the rest of
> the story you will have to figure out.
>
> We see a number of examples of where populations recently
> mixed there is a higher incidence of certain alleles being
> associated with disease.
>
> >2. If it isn't BS you may have some evidence that HSN and
> > HS couldn't produce healthy hybrids. HSN teeth were at
> > least as robust as those of earlier groups while HSS
> > teeth and jaws were reduced though not as
reduced
> >as in moderns. If the rules governing genetics say that
> >mixing those
genes
> >meant major dental problems you have evidence which beats
> >the snot out of
a
> >reasonible assumption.
>
> Don't need it.
>
You may not but the rest of the population might like to know
if anything we know about HSN and HSS say they two would have
sickly or aborted young. I don't think HSN genes are floating
but unless something turns up I'm still stuck with selected
out of the population rather than a barreir to breeding.

[Philip Dei]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:29:37 -0500, "deowll"
<deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>You may not but the rest of the population might like to know
>if anything we know about HSN and HSS say they two would have
>sickly or aborted young. I don't think HSN genes are floating
>but unless something turns up I'm still stuck with selected
>out of the population rather than a barreir to breeding.

Unlike archeologist I don't like proposing mechanisms that
are likely to be wrong. Neandertals and Humans did not
produce reproductively fit xprogeny, thats all one needs to
know until we have more defined information on how humans
have evolved. Someday we will know what the speciation
barrier, in the meantime it suffices that the barrier
existed. In the meantime I don't want to create paper tigers
for pontificators to take stabs at.

[Deowll]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f12355c.1063443@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:29:37 -0500, "deowll"
> <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >You may not but the rest of the population might like to
> >know if anything
we
> >know about HSN and HSS say they two would have sickly or
> >aborted young. I don't think HSN genes are floating but
> >unless something turns up I'm
still
> >stuck with selected out of the population rather than a
> >barreir to
breeding.
>
> Unlike archeologist I don't like proposing mechanisms that
> are likely to be wrong. Neandertals and Humans did not
> produce reproductively fit xprogeny, thats all one needs to
> know until we have more defined information on how humans
> have evolved. Someday we will know what the speciation
> barrier, in the meantime it suffices that the barrier
> existed. In the meantime I don't want to create paper tigers
> for pontificators to take stabs at.
>
>
Fair enough and thanks.

[Deowll]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f12355c.1063443@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:29:37 -0500, "deowll"
> <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >You may not but the rest of the population might like to
> >know if anything
we
> >know about HSN and HSS say they two would have sickly or
> >aborted young. I don't think HSN genes are floating but
> >unless something turns up I'm
still
> >stuck with selected out of the population rather than a
> >barreir to
breeding.
>
> Unlike archeologist I don't like proposing mechanisms that
> are likely to be wrong. Neandertals and Humans did not
> produce reproductively fit xprogeny, thats all one needs to
> know until we have more defined information on how humans
> have evolved. Someday we will know what the speciation
> barrier, in the meantime it suffices that the barrier
> existed. In the meantime I don't want to create paper tigers
> for pontificators to take stabs at.
>
>

Fair enough and thanks.

I may be posting twice but I got an error message.