| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2005 : 07:51:56 AM
|
What it shows is higher diversity in Lebanon, and not higher homogeneity. It has nothing to do with culture, but it's quite unfortunate that our cultural heterogeneity is also mirrored in polymorphic diversity.
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
|
|
Lebanese Jew
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 10:24:29 AM
|
Precisely on point Bullocks. This is the point I was trying to make earlier when I raised the issue of diversity within the Arab World.
One can chose to focus on this diversity as a source of cultural wealth, or alternatively use it to argue the lack of ethnic homogeneity, hence the lack of an ethnic or cultural bond. As a globalist, I prefer to look at it as a source of cultural wealth, and focus on what we share as human beings, rather on what separates us. Of course I respect differences among societies, and I appreciate immensely ethnic and religious prerogatives but I do not believe they ought to stand as a barrier between peoples or be abused as motivation to war.
The article describes central Asia as the source of 3 major waves of migration towards the modern world. I wonder whether this source, metaphorically speaking, must continue to be in a volcanic state (wars and conflicts, but also in the primordial not to say primitive sense) to stay alive as a source. If it is in a volcanic state, then who controls its action? Do we foresee a calming down in that crater (cradle of civilization? As many like to call it)? When and how? |
 |
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 11:01:38 AM
|
Hello
thanks for your comment.
Non-recombinant Y chromosome polymorphisms or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or any kind of genetic marker that is used in genetic screening of populations doesn't necessarily parallel cultural diversity.
The simplest example I can give you is the Basque and the Spanish have been found to be genetically homogeneous because of gene flow between the two populations - even though the linguistic patterns show the Basque to be an isolated population from the rest of Europe (probably representing a persecuted minority). So these findings don't mean that the Lebanese Sunni is genetically different from the Lebanese Jew and from the Lebanese Maronite or Lebanese Shiite.
What it means is that there is a bigger gene pool in Lebanon. What happened was - based on the Out-of-Africa model which is still controversial but more favrouable - all people migrated out of the African continent. The model states that modern humans, Homo sapiens, emerged in Africa and took over the world by displacing the Homo erectus (early humans) - in other words they killed them, they didn't mix with them.
The alternative model which is the "Regional Model" suggests that modern humans emerged in different regions in the world and mixed with the original inhabitants. This model also argues that the Neanderthals in Europe gave the Europeans the red hair gene for instance and their distinctive looks. So it argues against the out-of-africa model, and it argues that diversity emerged in a regional manner.
However mitchondrial evidence argues against this theory - and it supports the out-of-Africa model.
The reason I'm going into all of this is to get to the point which is to explain the Out-of Africa model and explain why that wouldn't mean that our cultural differences go in parallel to our genetic differences.
Imagine you had a population that had different forms (called alleles) of the same gene. Let's imagine the first one was called X, the second one was called Y, and the third Z. So imagine it's hair colour X, hair colour Y, and hair colour Z.
Imagine these people were living in Africa with the highest gene diversity. Now imagine X left Africa to europe. Then all the descendants in Europe will have X, but will not have Y and Z. They will also develop X1, X2 and X3 which are different polymorphisms of X, but that are very different to Y and Z. And that's how this article is explaining the diversity based on the non-recombinant region of the Y chromosome.
Now the point is that if Africa had X, Y and Z - it doesn't mean that the first tribe in Africa will only have X - the second will have Y and the third will have Z. People in Africa are mixing all the time, so they will have all 3. But what it means is that the people in the rest of the world would only be similar to a portion of the people in Africa, and not to all the people in Africa.
So the only thing we can infer from the high genetic diversity in Lebanon is that we resulted from a big mixture of people from different regions - or otherwise, it might mean that we were the first destination of people who came from Africa before people spread to the rest of the world.
So it doesn't mean that there is a volcanic state of kicking people out - All it means that at one point in time, people did leave lebanon for other countries in the world.
Now since you're a globalist, and you decided to bring this on yourself, I would like to point out that people will end up homogeneous all over the world - once enough mixing has taken place between them. The barrier is geographical isolation - but there will be a time when genetic diversity will be high in all regions of the world. Compare the diversity in America and in England for instance
"كنت أفضل لو كانت المقاومة وطنية شاملة وليست شيعية صرفاً"
السيد محمد حسن الأمين |
Edited by - Bullocks on 06/30/2005 11:56:43 AM |
|
|
|
Lebanese Jew
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 1:59:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
Non-recombinant Y chromosome polymorphisms or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or any kind of genetic marker that is used in genetic screening of populations doesn't necessarily parallel cultural diversity.
I agree, the cultural domain is much more complex than the simple elements of genetic heredity. Culture for me is the body of learned beliefs, traditions, principles and guides for behavior that are commonly shared among members of a particular group. It serves as a roadmap for both perceiving and interacting with the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
The simplest example I can give you is the Basque and the Spanish have been found to be genetically homogeneous because of gene flow between the two populations - even though the linguistic patterns show the Basque to be an isolated population from the rest of Europe (probably representing a persecuted minority). So these findings don't mean that the Lebanese Sunni is genetically different from the Lebanese Jew and from the Lebanese Maronite or Lebanese Shiite.
These findings indicate that the Basque and the Spanish are the same people separated by geographical barriers. These geographical barriers led overtime to the emergence of 2 different cultures. I never meant to say that genetic differences between the religious communities in Lebanon, if they exist, are at the root of the conflicts their. In fact I believe that significant genetic differences may be lacking among the Lebanese communities. Also if you look from a distance, you do not see any significant cultural differences either. Same food, same music, same art (as dana alluded to earlier), same social traditions. The only differences seen are microcosmic, in the sense that only a Lebanese can spot them: These are differences in the language accent between North, South, Mt. Lebanon, Bekaa and sometimes within the same region (e.g. Byblos vs Tyr) and these have a lot to do with the early evolution of language in the segregated old Phoenician cities, before these cities could communicate amongst themselves. Another microcosmic difference is the religious practices, but these are not idiosyncratic to Lebanon, they are almost the same in every society. Therefore, I recommended earlier a book "The Arab Peoples" by Sir John Glubb; in it he classifies the Arab Peoples in different groups based largely on their social behavior (in part on their business attitudes, ways of thinking and social etiquette). He comes to the conclusion that the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean shores (Syria, Lebanon and Palestine) are an entity by themselves, distinguished from the rest of the Arab world that lies behind the line of the Mount Lebanon range.quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
The reason I'm going into all of this is to get to the point which is to explain the Out-of Africa model and explain why that wouldn't mean that our cultural differences go in parallel to our genetic differences.
Not being an anthropologist or a geneticist, I cannot give you a well-reasoned reply to the science, but I agree with you that our cultural differences do NOT go in parallel to our genetic differences.quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
So it doesn't mean that there is a volcanic state of kicking people out - All it means that at one point in time, people did leave Lebanon for other countries in the world.
I did not say there was a volcanic state, I was merely wondering but thank you for your elaborate analysis of the science. We have to keep in mind that Lebanon throughout its history (ancient and modern) has been at the “carrefour of civilizations”. So in as much as there could have been an efflux of genes from Lebanon to the world, there might have been also an influx of genes from all over.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
Now since you're a globalist, and you decided to bring this on yourself, I would like to point out that people will end up homogeneous all over the world - once enough mixing has taken place between them. The barrier is geographical isolation.
For me this is what I hope for: to be able to see us (humans) today in the eyes of the future. Do not structure our societies along the divisive geographical, ethnic and religious barriers but rather around the common interests of its people (standard of life, economy, health, progress, etc.). Therefore what I said to dana earlier was not to put down the idea of Arab nationalism or an Arab super state, but rather to focus on strengthening the individual national components of this transnational organizational state, before we move to the big scenario. This is what the Arabs did not pay enough attention to in the 20th century and what may have led to the failure of the Arab League idea. After all, it started organizationally before the EU, but did not progress as fast. Why? |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 4:39:47 PM
|
The analysis of cultural differences in the Middle East is as complex as its history. To complicate matters further, now we have genetics brought into the analytical picture. In its gross model, genetics vs environment is an argument of nature vs nurture; the presumed opposition of these two has been a major concern of civilization since its beginnings.
Christian theologians interpreted Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit as the origin of an inherited 'original sin'. Saint Augustine explicitly applied the concept to human mental development, arguing that, because of original sin, children are inclined toward evil and education requires physical punishment. For centuries, it was considered parents' moral and religious obligation, not to nurture their children, in our current sense of that word, but to beat the willfulness out of them. 16th century humanists fought back, arguing that "schools have become torture chambers" while it is adults "who corrupt young minds with evil". Locke's (1690) statement that children are born as a 'white paper' was crucial in rejecting the dogma of an inborn (and sinful) nature. The original sin vs. white paper argument merged with another ancient dichotomy: inborn instinct (which controls animal behavior) vs. the reason and free will which humans have. Darwin made the concept of inherited instinct, common to man and animals, one cornerstone of his theory of evolution. The 20th century saw scientists recast the debate as instinct vs. learning, bitterly argued between behaviorists and ethologists. Laboratory experimentation and field observation showed that behavior could develop without learning but also that conditioning paradigms could powerfully mold behavior. The progress of genetics and neurobiology has led to the modern synthesis that neural development, and hence behavior, results from the interdependent action of both heredity and environment.
Translation of this analysis of individual behavior to differences in societal conduct could mean that societies evolve both in response to the flux of genes in their population but also in response to environmental cues that favor a particular phenotype and select it over others.
When it comes to Lebanon, I am unaware of any carefully carried genetic study of its population that looks at both Y-chromosome haplotypes and mitochondrial DNA throughout the various geographical regions and compares it to other well documented studies.
Ironically, despite our cultural age, it would seem that the best approach for us to deal with each other and for the world to deal with the Lebanese, may still be to beat the willfulness out of them, force them into surrender and dictate to them what they should do. Given the fact that life in Lebanon requires a particular resilience to survive the geography, the recurrent cycles of unrest and conflicts throughout history, the continuous beating by others and among each others, it is plausible to suppose that generations who remained in Lebanon over time and survived it must have a particular local phenotype (could be shared with other cultures) that relates perhaps to a genotypic identity.
P.S. To read about the Basques’ culture and history if you are interested, this site gives a brief introduction that you may find helpful http://www.portaljuice.com/basque.html |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
PNAS 98(18):10244-9
Forum Locked
