"Europeans"

[Guest guest]

Genetic distance, as defined at

http://www.uni-forst.gwdg.de/forst/fg/data/gseduserhtml/node28.html

 

satisfies the triangle inequality : d(A,B) + d(B,C) >= d(A,C)

where A, B, C are three collections, and d(X,Y) = d(Y,X)

is the genetic distance between X and Y.

 

Table 4 of the Bamshad, et. al., paper gives

 

d(Upper Caste, West European) = 0.265.

d(Upper Caste, East European) = 0.073.

 

Therefore, since

d(West European, East European) + d(East European, Upper Caste)

>= d(West European, Upper Caste)

or

 

d(WE, EE) + 0.073 >= 0.265

or d(WE, EE) >= 0.265 - 0.073 = 0.192

 

or d(WE, EE)/ d(UC, EE) >= 0.192/0.073 = 2.6

 

West Europeans are more than two and a half times as distant

from East Europeans than are Indian Upper Castes, according to

my deductions from the Bamshad paper.

 

The Indian Lower Castes are closer to East Europeans than

West Europeans are to East Europeans ( d(LC, EE) = 0.155 ).

 

The category "Europeans" as a genetic group, used in

tables 1,3,4,5 of the Bamshad table does not make any sense

in this context. Using Europeans as a genetic

group is like measuring the average distance from the

{Himalayas, Vindhyas}, it makes sense only when the location

is really far away from the two ranges.

 

Bamshad, et. al., do not mention anywhere the genetic distance

between the Upper Caste, Middle Caste and Lower Caste groups,

but one can use the triangle inequality to bound this.

The best bound comes from whatever is measured in table 5,

where d(Upper Caste, European) = 0.032,

d(Lower Caste, European) = 0.073,

 

and so

(0.032 + 0.073 ) >= d(Upper Caste, Lower Caste) >= (0.073 - 0.032)

or 0.105 >= d(UC,LC) >= 0.041

 

Table 5 is a different measure from Table 4, so the

d(WE, EE) = 0.192 computed above is not directly comparable.

 

But I would guess that the Indian castes are much closer to

each other (and to East Europeans) in genetic distance than are

West Europeans to East Europeans.

 

If my analysis and guesses are correct, then the use of

"European" as a genetic category or category connoting a common

descent is a clear example of Eurocentricity. By Bamshad's

measures, East Europeans are Indians and not Europeans.

 

(And if I am wrong, egg on my face)

-Arun Gupta

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, suvidya@o... wrote:

 

> d(WE, EE) + 0.073 >= 0.265

> or d(WE, EE) >= 0.265 - 0.073 = 0.192

>

> or d(WE, EE)/ d(UC, EE) >= 0.192/0.073 = 2.6

>

> West Europeans are more than two and a half times as distant

> from East Europeans than are Indian Upper Castes, according to

> my deductions from the Bamshad paper.

....

> (And if I am wrong, egg on my face)

 

Arun, you are right about the above metric, so long as you apply it to

the same genetic feature in all populations being studied. It is a

question of defining average genetic distance in a statistically

meaningful and logically consistent way.

 

Indeed, applying the triangle inequality, we can also get an upper

bound of 0.338 (= 0.265 + 0.073) for the Y-chromosome (biallele

polymorphism) genetic distance between W. and E. Europeans. This means

that W. Europeans can be as much as 4.6 (= 0.338/0.073) times farther

away than Indian upper castes, from E. Europeans. Note also that

Indians are closer to E. Europeans than to S. Europeans, but closer to

S. Europeans than to W. Europeans.

 

Informally speaking, the male ancestors of contemporary Indians (all

castes) were close cousins of the ancestors of contemporary Slavs. The

male ancestors of Greeks and Italians were slightly more removed, and

those of contemporary English, French and German populations were even

more distant. Also, Indians (all castes) are closer to Slavs than they

are to other Asians. Indeed, they are closer to S. Europeans and W.

Europeans also, than to other Asians.

 

Will Sweetman remarked about the 1% difference between humans and

other primates, and Rohan Oberoi responded that genetics is indeed

significant. The 1% difference is based on a comparison of the entire

genetic database for each species. In comparing populations of the

same species, one looks at much more restricted data, from sex

chromosomes, and mitochondrial chromosomes, which are specific to

individual species.

 

So, for once, Rohan is right about something, without getting hot

under the collar. But by that very argument, the points that Arun

Gupta and I have raised need careful thought. Given such numbers, one

must question how much genetic meaning exists, when people talk of

Indians (all castes) and Europeans (W., S. and E. put together). I'm

sure Indologists will agree that it does not make much sense to club

together "all castes" in India. It perhaps makes even less sense to

put together "all Europeans" as one consolidated reference point in

genomic studies. Generalizations like these only make sense when

comparing "all castes" and "all Europeans" to "Asians", i.e. when

comparing one general entity to another general entity, not otherwise.

 

Genomic research is not only genetics. It is also statistics. Good

stories exist in what numbers one chooses NOT to look at. Some of

these are likely to be more interesting than the stories revealed by

those numbers that one DOES choose to investigate.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar