Is population genetics dead?

[A Yeomans]

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I'm getting extremely frustrated with the lack of progress or even effort for that matter with population genetics. Is it dead, or in another lull of activity? For that matter, I'm not even sure where FTDNA is with this type of research, let alone 23andMe. What is the state of population genetics and where do we get the latest results of studies now? I hate the paywalls for articles that were written 10 years ago and I refuse to consider the thought of paying for outdated articles written with inaccurate data or with very little substance with unsubstantiated information. There's no more excitement it seems.

Arch

[gtc]

There's no more excitement it seems.

Yep, as an L48'er it's been dead for a long time now.

I was considering funding my own WTY test (at $750), but have decided to wait until the "next big thing", which I expect will be complete genome testing for around $1,000 -- that is, if the loony legislators don't interfere beforehand.

Meanwhile, if an eligible SNP below L48 emerges, I'll get tested for it.

[Stevo]

I certainly concur with the sentiments of Arch's original post. When studies are published, it seems they are always at least a year or two behind what we have learned from commercial dna testing and genetic genealogy. Sometimes they are even further behind than that. Take the Genographic Project's "Atlas of the Human Journey" haplogroup pages. It still has the same old, outdated and now ridiculous blurb about R1b (M343), the "Cro-Magnons", and Paleolithic cave paintings.

I wonder if we aren't witnessing a new dynamic in genetic science in which market forces and the desire of consumers to learn the truth about their own deep ancestry are driving the real cutting edge of knowledge.

[gtc]

I wonder if we aren't witnessing a new dynamic in genetic science in which market forces and the desire of consumers to learn the truth about their own deep ancestry are driving the real cutting edge of knowledge.

I think you're on the money there.

As for the GP, I am deeply skeptical about that. For some time I have had the feeling that it exists to keep Spencer Wells employed. Wells is very good at producing popular books and TV shows, but he has yet to deliver the promised peer reviewed scientific papers from the GP. If and when he does, I feel they will be so far behind the current action as to be of no particular benefit to genetic genealogists.

[Frederator]

Peer review and controls protocols do tend to hold up the show.

But the bottom line is probably macroeconomic--just not as much discretionary cash.

But in a way that could be a blessing. Gives us time to translate all these old papers to Chinese--which we'll all be speaking before the DOW hits 11,000 again.

I certainly concur with the sentiments of Arch's original post. When studies are published, it seems they are always at least a year or two behind what we have learned from commercial dna testing and genetic genealogy. Sometimes they are even further behind than that. Take the Genographic Project's "Atlas of the Human Journey" haplogroup pages. It still has the same old, outdated and now ridiculous blurb about R1b (M343), the "Cro-Magnons", and Paleolithic cave paintings.

I wonder if we aren't witnessing a new dynamic in genetic science in which market forces and the desire of consumers to learn the truth about their own deep ancestry are driving the real cutting edge of knowledge.

[Pantagathus]

I sure hope not!

I sure hope that population genetics isn't stalled out... I am more interested in knowing my deep ancestry for certain than finding a new cousin somewhere...

[bob_chasm]

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I'm getting extremely frustrated with the lack of progress or even effort for that matter with population genetics. Is it dead, or in another lull of activity? For that matter, I'm not even sure where FTDNA is with this type of research, let alone 23andMe. What is the state of population genetics and where do we get the latest results of studies now? I hate the paywalls for articles that were written 10 years ago and I refuse to consider the thought of paying for outdated articles written with inaccurate data or with very little substance with unsubstantiated information. There's no more excitement it seems.

Arch

It is hardly dead in my haplogroup J, but I think people have become more careful about speculating on the boards, until evidence is fully developed.

For example:

J1c3d is present among 46% of Cohanim and 60% of Northern Arabian tribes, including Quraysh- tribe of Muhammad p.

We know J1c3d is only about 5,000 years old. This suggests that these two populations are paternally quite closely related and share a recent common ancestor.

Now many of us are waiting to see if geneticists can discover a snp among the J1c3d Cohanim/ Israelites that separates them from the Arabs.


regards,

[bob_chasm]

Gives us time to translate all these old papers to Chinese--which we'll all be speaking before the DOW hits 11,000 again.

[Frederator]

Ni hao ma.

Which translates to: "Guess that shows how much the DOW has to do with the real economy; we're at 9.6 pct unemployment with no one predicting we break 9 in the forseeable future."

Say, just exactly WHO is getting the benefit of that 11 thousand then?

[bob_chasm]

Ni hao ma.

Which translates to: "Guess that shows how much the DOW has to do with the real economy; we're at 9.6 pct unemployment with no one predicting we break 9 in the forseeable future."

Say, just exactly WHO is getting the benefit of that 11 thousand then?

Hi Frederator,

You are right, the DOW is climbing mostly because the S&P 500 companies are making money doing business with the BRICK countries and not by waiting for things to get back to normal inside the USA. I actually got into the market when the Dow hit 7,000. So, it has been a pretty sweet ride for me. I got lucky. Although, for the last few days, even I have been lightening up by going 40% cash and keeping the rest of my money in high yielding dividend stock. Although, I bought a little Bank of America under $12 today- I am slowly building my position for next year. Like the old saying goes, it never hurts to take a little profit.

Take care my friend.

[darroll]

DNA,
I heard the government is buying stock.

[Frederator]

That's funny, cause all the newspapers are about selling, not buying, AIG and GM stock.

But if the pols are serious about getting capital to the actually productive parts of the economy, they'd introduce a propery tax on stock holdings valued over $500k. Force the banks to sell, and have the government use it to guarantee loans from smaller regional banks that fund the real economy of small, non-publicly traded companies.

Or maybe just refund it to the general public. I think I could find a few useful purposes for that cash. It'd be a challenge, but I feel up to it.

DNA,
I heard the government is buying stock.

[darroll]

The government is buying stock to prop up the market.
Robin Hood economics does not work.
Do you want the major stock holders to leave this country too like most businesses have ?

[Frederator]

Have you ever asked yourself how the stockmarket could be nearing an all-time high and yet this doesn't result in an improvement in the real economy (ie, employment)?

Answer: Exactly as Bob Chasm said in a previous post. The stock market has nothing to do with the real economy.

And few things will illustrate that more clearly than the growth of the market "value" of the stockmarket (ie, M3) as compared to the total money supply. Between 1960 and 2005, when the gov't stopped reporting M3, stocks and other counterfeit money rose from 2 pct to nearly 40 pct of the money supply. That's an increase of about 2,000 pct.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_the_United_States_money_supply2.svg

Does that make sense to you? Do you think construction workers, people who actually provide a tangible good and service, are making as much out of the M3 increase as the Big Banks are?

The obvious answer is: "No. Not with construction unemployment at about 14 pct."

So what's the solution? Another corporate tax cut? The highest corp rate was 70 pct in 1965, when unemployment was 4.5 pct; today the highest corp rate is 35 pct--and what's unemployment at?

Think again, Darroll.

The government is buying stock to prop up the market.
Robin Hood economics does not work.
Do you want the major stock holders to leave this country too like most businesses have ?