Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past

John Hawks has written a review about Reich's book.

See:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-we-are-and-how-we-got-here-review-ghosts-in-the-genome-1523399111

Frankly, I think it's much ado about nothing. Reich could have been more diplomatic about the hesitancy of indigenous people to give permission for some of these remains to be used, but honestly, we're talking about an ear bone! How are we forgetting about the humanity of this individual human being by grinding up a small piece of his ear. I think we're honoring it. We'll learn far more about him and about our shared humanity from analyzing it in this way than by putting it on a shelf and looking at it the way physical anthropologists do.

Obviously, I think we should treat the remains with respect and dignity. I mentioned on this thread that I didn't like the way Zink was handling the remains of Oetzi and the way he spoke about him.

The only thing with which I agree is that David Reich is very naive about how "political", and yes, agenda driven some people are about these remains and any potential results. He thinks most people are objective or try to be, but he's wrong about that. He gives them too much credit.
 
Angela said:
John Hawks has written a review about Reich's book.

See:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-we-are-and-how-we-got-here-review-ghosts-in-the-genome-1523399111

Frankly, I think it's much ado about nothing. Reich could have been more diplomatic about the hesitancy of indigenous people to give permission for some of these remains to be used, but honestly, we're talking about an ear bone! How are we forgetting about the humanity of this individual human being by grinding up a small piece of his ear. I think we're honoring it. We'll learn far more about him and about our shared humanity from analyzing it in this way than by putting it on a shelf and looking at it the way physical anthropologists do.

Obviously, I think we should treat the remains with respect and dignity. I mentioned on this thread that I didn't like the way Zink was handling the remains of Oetzi and the way he spoke about him.

The only thing with which I agree is that David Reich is very naive about how "political", and yes, agenda driven some people are about these remains and any potential results. He thinks most people are objective or try to be, but he's wrong about that. He gives them too much credit.
Click to expand...

I agree, the potential of understanding more about these ancient individuals is far more important than just preserving the bones. The information that we can get from them serves to honor their memory. It gives them even greater importance, than they previously had.
 
Thank you for sharing the the latest updates. Newswise —
The capacity to see beyond the highs and lows of both success and failure. Any time questions and answers are shared it opens a new perspective.

For the past few decades, new evidence aboutancient humans—in the form of skeletal remains, tools, and other artifacts—hastrickled in, inching us closer to an understanding of how our species evolvedand spread out across the planet. In just the past few years, however,knowledge of our deep past expanded significantly thanks to a series oftechnological breakthroughs in sequencing of ancient human genomes. Thistechnology can be used to find genetic links among populations of humanancestors dating back hundreds of thousands of years.In addition to advances in genomic technology,another factor is driving the explosion of new discoveries—aninch-long section of the human skull. Found near our ears, this pyramid-shapedportion of the temporal bone is nicknamed the petrous bone. The bone is veryhard, possibly because it needs to protect fragile structures such as thecochlea, which translates sound into brain signals, and the semicircularcanals, which help us maintain our balance. Perhaps because the petrous bone isso dense, it also is the bone in the body that best preserves DNA after aperson dies. As a result, archaeologists are scrambling to study samples takenfrom this pyramid-shaped structure to unlock the mysteries of our species’formative years.
To learn more about the petrousbone and its use in archaeology, as well as other advances in the field, Ispoke with NIGMS grantee David Reich, a genetic archaeologist from Harvard Medical Schooland the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and one of the world’s leading expertsin ancient human DNA.
I couldn't stop thinking about the significance of recent finds and discoveries.
 
Jovialis said:
http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2018/05/04/harvard-david-reich

Here's a radio interview with David Reich that came out yesterday.
Click to expand...

The thing that struck me the most is when he explained that the general public loses respect for science when it pronounces things which simple common sense indicates just isn't true, and that even if western scientists don't pursue these topics, scientists in other parts of the world undoubtedly will, so western scientists need to engage with this material and guide the public in how it should be interpreted.
 
Angela said:
The thing that struck me the most is when he explained that the general public loses respect for science when it pronounces things which simple common sense indicates just isn't true, and that even if western scientists don't pursue these topics, scientists in other parts of the world undoubtedly will, so western scientists need to engage with this material and guide the public in how it should be interpreted.
Click to expand...

I thought that was a compelling statement as well. Also, when he said, if we don't have objective scientific analysis to be a guide, the void will be filled with pseudo-science.
 
Jovialis said:
I thought that was a compelling statement as well. Also, when he said, if we don't have objective scientific analysis to be a guide, the void will be filled with pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.
 
The most informative chapter to me was the one on Africa, it really changed my perspective on the history of the continent.

Africa is far from the static background where nothing happened, its genetic history is quite young compared to Eurasia, with a lot of migrations and linguistic groups. Farmers from West Africa changed the history of the continent forever, their migrations spread Bantu languages.

Nilo-Saharan speakers are cattle herders in the East, but what is their origin? they're not identical to East African foragers (similar to Hadza), because they share more than half the ancestry with West African farmers, did they migrate from the west ?

When did West Eurasian ancestry arrive to East Africa? Mota is not that old, Bronze Age? and still no WEur ancestry, the chapter argues for an early Iron Age date for a vast migration. If that is the case, where were they before? Arabia? what caused them to move?
 
RV6Q2iB.png


New second edition coming out next month!
 
Jovialis said:
RV6Q2iB.png


New second edition coming out next month!
Click to expand...

I've checked almost every day this month, and I still haven't seen a new edition yet. Perhaps David Reich decided to wait on it due to other significant discoveries that are currently in progress? There's still a couple days left.
 
Jovialis said:
I've checked almost every day this month, and I still haven't seen a new edition yet. Perhaps David Reich decided to wait on it due to other significant discoveries that are currently in progress? There's still a couple days left.
Click to expand...

there is not so much news lately
are all the skeletons and other human remains with good prospects for DNA typing done?
do we have to wait till fresh skeletons will be discovered?
 
bicicleur said:
there is not so much news lately
are all the skeletons and other human remains with good prospects for DNA typing done?
do we have to wait till fresh skeletons will be discovered?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the Reich Lab alone have a couple of thousand specimens? they just have to analyze them all and prepare papers.
 
bicicleur said:
what's the matter then?
what takes them so long?
Click to expand...

I recall that the grant that they've received for all of these studies was about $400k. Despite the fact that the cost to sequence the ancient samples is relatively low. I think it's possible their concern is to make it as cost effective as possible.

I believe it was about $200 to sequence an ancient sample. With 1/3rd of them being successful. So they probably want to make sure the samples they are willing to spend the money on are of particular high quality. That's my speculation.
 
Jovialis said:
I recall that the grant that they've received for all of these studies was about $400k. Despite the fact that the cost to sequence the ancient samples is relatively low. I think it's possible their concern is to make it as cost effective as possible.

I believe it was about $200 to sequence an ancient sample. With 1/3rd of them being successful. So they probably want to make sure the samples they are willing to spend the money on are of particular high quality. That's my speculation.
Click to expand...

Plus, all their grad students have to get a paper to their credit. That's part of their function as a teaching institution. I also think that given their reputation they can't be slap dash. I'll be interested to see if they incorporate some of the new programs which have come out recently.
 
Haven’t posted for awhile. This whole scenario of paying for your blood results is quite a moneymaker. But can be used beneficially for sure. I had no problem giving my DNA up. The results were exact from what I already researched on my family history. The problem is that after your recent inclusions of genetic history (ie. grandparents) things start to be obscure and are updated often. I tested with 23 and me
 
Angela said:
Plus, all their grad students have to get a paper to their credit. That's part of their function as a teaching institution. I also think that given their reputation they can't be slap dash. I'll be interested to see if they incorporate some of the new programs which have come out recently.
Click to expand...

Ed the Red said:
Haven’t posted for awhile. This whole scenario of paying for your blood results is quite a moneymaker. But can be used beneficially for sure. I had no problem giving my DNA up. The results were exact from what I already researched on my family history. The problem is that after your recent inclusions of genetic history (ie. grandparents) things start to be obscure and are updated often. I tested with 23 and me
Click to expand...

It’s gonna be really hard to define a population as they were mixing from time continuum. Most Europeans have a percentage of Neanderthal, and as far as I know they have no explanation of their beginning, might be a mystery for a very long time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 77695 times.

Back
Top